Re: pacer and lollapalooza

["Aaron Swartz" <xx@aaronsw.com>]

Makes sense. Thanks again for all your help with this.

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Carl Malamud <xxxxxxx@media.org> wrote:
>
> On Jul 25, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>
>> Naive question: what's the problem with a paper board? Funders get turned
>> off?
>
> sort of.
>
> a paper board is much better than a disfunctional board.  no doubt about
> that.  and, if you have your money already or know you're going to get it
> without help, then you can get away with a paper board.
>
> but, it is like having a paper business plan (e.g., one for VCs instead of
> one for yourself).  You don't get the benefit of what the device is meant
> for.  A good board will help you do stuff: raise money, provides intros, and
> lend credibility.  You need at least one active member for when you do your
> yearly audit dance (which requires somebody besides you monitoring the
> finances on an ongoing basis ... /mtr does that for me),
>
> they don't need to be actively involved ... Hal Varian monitors my regular
> email stream, talks to me a few times a year, and sometimes has suggestions
> or intros for me.  but, he's way too busy to be screwing around.
>
> So, it's a matter of balance.  Less involved is certainly better than
> randomly involved too often.
>
>