[bernatfp]

If you really want him on board, then agree to this change. I don't think this makes your vision change that much.

And maybe letting you choose who can create a group will also rise the quality of the groups. However, I agree with you that adding this mechanism won't help much in offensive content prevention, but it can put some users away if they can't create a group right away.

[ghobbins]

Unfortunately from our view, it changes the vision a lot.

Our networks are built for universities and a big way we differentiate from other solutions (in which only chartered organizations can make a group) is we allow informal groups (study groups, interest groups, topic discussions, etc) on the system.

Based on our beta, a large percentage of groups are informal and would not be chartered by the university. Yammer does not limit who can create a group, for that reason we are more wary of them as competition.

[bernatfp]

Oh, I hadn't got the part in which these small networks depend on a superset (ie university), I thought you were validating people yourselves.

In this case this change entails a higher leap. Then, consider talking again in how different is his proposition from what you want to achieve, and how better it is for him (as an investor who wants his investment to succeed) to go your way, not his way. Well, I assume you've already done that, but do it again. You should win him to your side or skip him.

[argonaut]

This is really bad advice, I think. Technically it's true - if you want him on board you probably do need to make the change. But the fact is that this is the kind of investor you want to run away from.

[bernatfp]

You're right, but it doesn't look like running away is an option. OP emphasizes that they need him, and is specifically asking for help on how to handle this.