5 ms·

I replied at the top level because so many people didn’t read the article. A board member normally has influence over the direction of the company. They did no

I replied at the top level because so many people didn’t read the article. A board member normally has influence over the direction of the company. They did not need to spell it out.

gnicholas 6y ago
Pretty big logical leap there. I don’t think it’s justified to conclude that his board seat is to allow him to protect his publishing partnership. If they wanted to do that, they could have just made the contract ironclad. Also, one board seat out of five doesn’t enable him to protect the partnership. Log-roll, maybe, but again this is drawing some pretty conclusions IMO.
- 1123581321 6y ago
  Yes, you’re correct about the limitations of the power of one board member on a board of five. As for the rest, it might help you to think of a board relationship as providing several benefits to both the board member and the company. We’ve only discussed one. In addition to his partnership work, he’ll conduct normal board member duties.
  - gnicholas 6y ago
    Sure, we’ve only discussed one aspect because it’s the only one that you chose to describe (and IMO, invent).
    - 1123581321 6y ago
      It’s unremarkably common for organizations and the key individuals to use a board seat to ensure an enduring partnership. I don’t know what to suggest to you except to look at board seats of other companies to better understand the reasons for assignments. You’ll typically find them assigned for financial, expertise, and partnership reasons.
      - gnicholas 6y ago
        I find your tone patronizing and substance lacking. I have never seen a board seat granted in order to allow the board member to protect a partnership. To induce the board member to create a partnership? That makes more sense. But it isn’t what you claimed. You made a specific and unsubstantiated claim that it was to allow him to protect his partnership in the event of executive change. Not sure why you keep digging in on this position. You strongly implied that the article said something that it absolutely did not. Good day!
        1123581321 6y ago
        Take care. :) I’ve enjoyed talking with you as well.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

I replied at the top level because so many people didn’t read the article. A board member normally has influence over the direction of the company. They did not need to spell it out.

gnicholas 6y ago

Pretty big logical leap there. I don’t think it’s justified to conclude that his board seat is to allow him to protect his publishing partnership. If they wanted to do that, they could have just made the contract ironclad. Also, one board seat out of five doesn’t enable him to protect the partnership. Log-roll, maybe, but again this is drawing some pretty conclusions IMO.

1123581321 6y ago
Yes, you’re correct about the limitations of the power of one board member on a board of five. As for the rest, it might help you to think of a board relationship as providing several benefits to both the board member and the company. We’ve only discussed one. In addition to his partnership work, he’ll conduct normal board member duties.
- gnicholas 6y ago
  Sure, we’ve only discussed one aspect because it’s the only one that you chose to describe (and IMO, invent).
  - 1123581321 6y ago
    It’s unremarkably common for organizations and the key individuals to use a board seat to ensure an enduring partnership. I don’t know what to suggest to you except to look at board seats of other companies to better understand the reasons for assignments. You’ll typically find them assigned for financial, expertise, and partnership reasons.
    - gnicholas 6y ago
      I find your tone patronizing and substance lacking. I have never seen a board seat granted in order to allow the board member to protect a partnership. To induce the board member to create a partnership? That makes more sense. But it isn’t what you claimed. You made a specific and unsubstantiated claim that it was to allow him to protect his partnership in the event of executive change. Not sure why you keep digging in on this position. You strongly implied that the article said something that it absolutely did not. Good day!
      - 1123581321 6y ago
        Take care. :) I’ve enjoyed talking with you as well.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]