[leggomylibro]

This is a complex topic, but it seems like there are a couple of questions about the character of people who work in executive roles which should fundamentally matter in due diligence discussions.

Do they implicitly respect the agency of others? Do they see people as individuals with their own goals and the fundamental right to decide what those goals are?

These people make a lot of decisions on behalf of others, and I believe that asking those questions isn't that far off from asking: can you trust them to act in the interests of their employees, clients, and customers? Or at the very least, are they likely to have some sense of fiduciary duty towards the people who they agree to perform work for?

So, from my perspective, "a private mistake which we all agree was not business-related" sounds...well I don't know the right word, but who is 'we' in that phrase?

And I don't know which institutional investor balked at the fund based on the perceived character of its decision-makers, but I appreciate that they considered that angle in their process.

[tptacek]

I thought "private mistake" was an extremely weird argument, too. It can't possibly be right; any of us can think of "private" crimes that would preclude someone's continued involvement with a VC firm. So, really, the implied argument he's making is that sexual assault is some kind of lesser crime.

[ScottBurson]

I read it as drawing a distinction between sexual assault committed against someone with whom the firm has an actual or potential business relationship (e.g. hitting on a founder when she pitches you) vs. one committed against someone with no such connection. Certainly the law would not distinguish these two — I didn't read him as suggesting that — but one's business associates might.