[boh]

Whenever there's an obvious conflict, assume it's not enforced or difficult to litigate or has relatively irrelevant penalties. Experts/lawyers who have a material stake in getting this right have signed off on it. Many (if not most) people with enough status to be on the board of a fortune 500 company tend to also be on non-profit boards. We can go out on a limb and suppose the mission of the nonprofit is not their top priority, and yet they continue on unscathed.

[hinkley]

Do you remember before Bill Gates got into disease prevention he thought that “charity work” could be done by giving away free Microsoft products? I don’t know who sat him down and explained to him how full of shit he was but they deserve a Nobel Peace Prize nomination.

Just because someone says they agree with a mission doesn’t mean they have their heads screwed on straight. And my thesis is that the more power they have in the real world the worse the outcomes - because powerful people become progressively immune to feedback. This has been working swimmingly for me for decades, I don’t need humility in a new situation.

[Xelynega]

> Experts/lawyers who have a material stake in getting this right have signed off on it.

How does that work when we're talking about non-profit motives? The lawyers are paid by the companies benefitting from these conflicts, so how is it at all reassuring to hear that the people who benefit from the conflict signed off on it?

> We can go out on a limb and suppose the mission of the nonprofit is not their top priority, and yet they continue on unscathed.

That's the concern. They've just replaced people who "maybe" cared about the mission statement with people who you've correctly identified care more about profit growth than the nonprofit mission.