6 ms·

I'm pretty surprised, and a little disappointed by, this addition. The FB board is already a who's who of "Silicon Valley Standard Perspectives". As Facebook's

I'm pretty surprised, and a little disappointed by, this addition. The FB board is already a who's who of "Silicon Valley Standard Perspectives". As Facebook's biggest challenges continue to be about the unexpected consequences of the breadth of its technology, Drew doesn't seem to add any perspective that I'd expect the board to be missing right now.

yingw787 7y ago
Is that what a board is for, though? I agree that additional perspective could help Facebook address systemic faults but I'm not sure adding somebody to the board is how you go about doing it. I'm not familiar with principles and processes of executive leadership though.
- otterley 7y ago
  The Board of Directors is the most powerful group of people in a corporation. They have the power to hire and fire executives (including the CEO). They set the top-level direction of the company. If the Board isn't entrusted to address systemic faults, then I can't think of a more appropriate place within the company. That said, FB is an anomaly -- Mark Zuckerberg has special voting rights that prevent the Board from overruling him on any question. So for that company, it really doesn't matter who's on the Board; Zuck can do whatever he pleases.
aprao 7y ago
Given Drew runs a very privacy-focused profitable business, I'd imagine he'd have at least a slightly different perspectives on things.
- yuvadam 7y ago
  Um, how is Dropbox anything even close to "privacy-focused"?
  - lacker 7y ago
    They make their money from enterprise software, for which privacy and access controls are very important. The other tech leaders on the board are more consumer-focused businesses, and consumer-focused businesses generally don't care as much about privacy.
    - sintaxi 7y ago
      1) Files are not encrypted on Dropbox servers. 2) The Dropbox client scans files on your machine that are outside the Dropbox folder. 3) collaboration with others via 3rd party app requires you to grant the app access to your entire Dropbox directory. Not only is privacy not a focus at Dropbox. It isn't even a consideration.
      - shadre 7y ago
        Do you have a source for claim #2? Please share
        sintaxi 7y ago
        https://www.dropboxforum.com/t5/Installs-integrations/Too-high-disk-activity/td-p/109863 https://www.dropboxforum.com/t5/Installs-integrations/Too-hi...
        asveikau 7y ago
        Most people in that thread are just complaining of high disk usage without specifying where access occurs. Then page 3 has the following user report: > I'm running Windows 10 and my Dropbox is located on my E drive (E:\Dropbox). I also notice high disk activity. However when I look in Resource Monitor I noticed that the high activity generated by Dropbox.exe is on the C drive (not E). To which an employee says the reason is that dropbox is installed on C:. > Although you have your Dropbox folder on your E: drive, the application is still installed on your C: drive, so that’s why you’re seeing the activity there.
- ThePhysicist 7y ago
  Dropbox might be secure but I wouldn’t say they are privacy focused. There are other offerings like Tresorit or Spideroak that offer end to end encryption of files, that’s more something that I’d call privacy focused.
- vanusa 7y ago
  One could also describe Dropbox as "corridors of power" focused. Which is pretty much the main reason they have Condaleezza Rice on their board.
- tl 7y ago
  My response is Condoleezza Rice [1] followed by Prism [2] followed by hysterical laughter. [1] http://www.drop-dropbox.com/ http://www.drop-dropbox.com/ [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
  - dang 7y ago
    > bashing Dropbox is HN-suicide That's not true, and why would you go to the trouble of making a footnote about a six-year-old thread yet skip providing the link? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566069 grellas' comment has 270+ replies, and HN's software currently paginates threads at 250 comments. That is purely for performance reasons, and I can't wait to be able to turn it off. If you go to the subsequent pages, there are many other top-level comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566069&p=2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566069&p=2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566069&p=3 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566069&p=3 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566069&p=4 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566069&p=4 grellas' comment is at the top because the ranking algorithm put it there; many of his comments have gotten upvoted heavily over the years. Moderators didn't do any of that.
  - asveikau 7y ago
    People here don't like to hear things that smell like politics, but the Condi Rice thing is a big deal. Excuse my bluntness, but she was one of the public faces of thousands of preventable deaths in Iraq. To have no problem with this I think has so something to do with what people mean when they say many in tech have basic ethics problems.
- mehrdada 7y ago
  Where did you get "profitable" from?
relaunched 7y ago
The board is the only group that can hold executives accountable. May they should bring in someone that has experience running companies that do the right thing, for the long-term best interest of the shareholders. They don't need any more of this get big at all costs, move fast and break things and money can make things go away - nonsense.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  How does the board hold Zuckerberg or anyone loyal to him accountable when he controls >50% of shares? Zuckerberg and his lieutenants can do almost anything they wants as long as he doesn’t tank the stock price or bring about a pile on of investor lawsuits.
  - staticassertion 7y ago
    There are legal protections for minority shareholders and boards of directors. Owning > 50% of the stock buys you lots of control, but not total control. Boards do remove CEOs all the time.
    - mygo 7y ago
      > Boards do remove CEOs all the time. The same ones that they either hired or executed a coup on. The majority shareholder has a good chance of remaining as CEO if he is proactive enough and stacks the board in his favor over time. It’s a chess game.
      - staticassertion 7y ago
        All the time? edit: To your post-edited comment, yes, it's a strategy game. There are lots of ways to avoid getting ousted as a CEO.

yingw787 7y ago

Is that what a board is for, though? I agree that additional perspective could help Facebook address systemic faults but I'm not sure adding somebody to the board is how you go about doing it. I'm not familiar with principles and processes of executive leadership though.

otterley 7y ago
The Board of Directors is the most powerful group of people in a corporation. They have the power to hire and fire executives (including the CEO). They set the top-level direction of the company. If the Board isn't entrusted to address systemic faults, then I can't think of a more appropriate place within the company. That said, FB is an anomaly -- Mark Zuckerberg has special voting rights that prevent the Board from overruling him on any question. So for that company, it really doesn't matter who's on the Board; Zuck can do whatever he pleases.

aprao 7y ago

Given Drew runs a very privacy-focused profitable business, I'd imagine he'd have at least a slightly different perspectives on things.

yuvadam 7y ago
Um, how is Dropbox anything even close to "privacy-focused"?
- lacker 7y ago
  They make their money from enterprise software, for which privacy and access controls are very important. The other tech leaders on the board are more consumer-focused businesses, and consumer-focused businesses generally don't care as much about privacy.
  - sintaxi 7y ago
    1) Files are not encrypted on Dropbox servers. 2) The Dropbox client scans files on your machine that are outside the Dropbox folder. 3) collaboration with others via 3rd party app requires you to grant the app access to your entire Dropbox directory. Not only is privacy not a focus at Dropbox. It isn't even a consideration.
    - shadre 7y ago
      Do you have a source for claim #2? Please share
      - sintaxi 7y ago
        https://www.dropboxforum.com/t5/Installs-integrations/Too-high-disk-activity/td-p/109863 https://www.dropboxforum.com/t5/Installs-integrations/Too-hi...
        asveikau 7y ago
        Most people in that thread are just complaining of high disk usage without specifying where access occurs. Then page 3 has the following user report: > I'm running Windows 10 and my Dropbox is located on my E drive (E:\Dropbox). I also notice high disk activity. However when I look in Resource Monitor I noticed that the high activity generated by Dropbox.exe is on the C drive (not E). To which an employee says the reason is that dropbox is installed on C:. > Although you have your Dropbox folder on your E: drive, the application is still installed on your C: drive, so that’s why you’re seeing the activity there.
ThePhysicist 7y ago
Dropbox might be secure but I wouldn’t say they are privacy focused. There are other offerings like Tresorit or Spideroak that offer end to end encryption of files, that’s more something that I’d call privacy focused.
vanusa 7y ago
One could also describe Dropbox as "corridors of power" focused. Which is pretty much the main reason they have Condaleezza Rice on their board.
tl 7y ago
My response is Condoleezza Rice [1] followed by Prism [2] followed by hysterical laughter. [1] http://www.drop-dropbox.com/ http://www.drop-dropbox.com/ [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
- dang 7y ago
  > bashing Dropbox is HN-suicide That's not true, and why would you go to the trouble of making a footnote about a six-year-old thread yet skip providing the link? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566069 grellas' comment has 270+ replies, and HN's software currently paginates threads at 250 comments. That is purely for performance reasons, and I can't wait to be able to turn it off. If you go to the subsequent pages, there are many other top-level comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566069&p=2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566069&p=2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566069&p=3 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566069&p=3 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566069&p=4 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566069&p=4 grellas' comment is at the top because the ranking algorithm put it there; many of his comments have gotten upvoted heavily over the years. Moderators didn't do any of that.
- asveikau 7y ago
  People here don't like to hear things that smell like politics, but the Condi Rice thing is a big deal. Excuse my bluntness, but she was one of the public faces of thousands of preventable deaths in Iraq. To have no problem with this I think has so something to do with what people mean when they say many in tech have basic ethics problems.
mehrdada 7y ago
Where did you get "profitable" from?

relaunched 7y ago

The board is the only group that can hold executives accountable. May they should bring in someone that has experience running companies that do the right thing, for the long-term best interest of the shareholders. They don't need any more of this get big at all costs, move fast and break things and money can make things go away - nonsense.

claudeganon 7y ago
How does the board hold Zuckerberg or anyone loyal to him accountable when he controls >50% of shares? Zuckerberg and his lieutenants can do almost anything they wants as long as he doesn’t tank the stock price or bring about a pile on of investor lawsuits.
- staticassertion 7y ago
  There are legal protections for minority shareholders and boards of directors. Owning > 50% of the stock buys you lots of control, but not total control. Boards do remove CEOs all the time.
  - mygo 7y ago
    > Boards do remove CEOs all the time. The same ones that they either hired or executed a coup on. The majority shareholder has a good chance of remaining as CEO if he is proactive enough and stacks the board in his favor over time. It’s a chess game.
    - staticassertion 7y ago
      All the time? edit: To your post-edited comment, yes, it's a strategy game. There are lots of ways to avoid getting ousted as a CEO.