Independent board: Difference between revisions
(rm useless slander) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
An '''independent board''' of advisors and/or directors is one of the requirements to legally take charitable contributions in many countries. All large charities have one. | An '''independent board''' of advisors and/or directors is one of the requirements to legally take charitable contributions in many countries. All large charities have one. They are absolutely necessary to attract any major donor. | ||
Some, e.g. [[Wikimedia]], refuse to have such a [[board]], loading it instead with insiders, i.e. from [[Bomis]]. One reason to avoid having such a board is to ensure that "friendly" people are in charge if their pet projects are someday audited. Very reasonably, most people refuse to contribute large amounts to such groups who avoid scrutiny of truly independent directors. | |||
The [[CGO]] will have a strictly independent board of directors that will be legally responsible for what the [[Publish Wiki]] broadcasts about companies and products. Any [[groupthink]] in this respect is extremely dangerous, as, believing one's own bullshit (see [[Wikipedia]]) can destroy any charitable group. Auditors and regulators take commitments to charitable donors very seriously. | |||
Revision as of 15:17, 17 June 2004
An independent board of advisors and/or directors is one of the requirements to legally take charitable contributions in many countries. All large charities have one. They are absolutely necessary to attract any major donor.
Some, e.g. Wikimedia, refuse to have such a board, loading it instead with insiders, i.e. from Bomis. One reason to avoid having such a board is to ensure that "friendly" people are in charge if their pet projects are someday audited. Very reasonably, most people refuse to contribute large amounts to such groups who avoid scrutiny of truly independent directors.
The CGO will have a strictly independent board of directors that will be legally responsible for what the Publish Wiki broadcasts about companies and products. Any groupthink in this respect is extremely dangerous, as, believing one's own bullshit (see Wikipedia) can destroy any charitable group. Auditors and regulators take commitments to charitable donors very seriously.