How are we proceeding on the lying, warmongering members of the board of directors front? Because that's a pretty big trust issue if you want me to regard your shares as worth anything.
Yes; and Apple also has a convicted woman abuser on board...
http://qz.com/476599/dr-dre-rapper-turned-apple-guru-wants-y...
The idea of someone who is in favour of the NSA hoovering up as much data as possible being on the board of a company who's job it is to securely manage huge quantities of personal data, just doesn't strike me as a good statement of their concern for personal privacy...
However, even if I did:
This is definitely Apples-and-Oranges. Apple is a company that is difficult to replicate. A household name. It has established supply chains around the world and a retail presence in many major cities. I don't think that Apple's value is anywhere near as dependent on trust as Dropbox's is. And having a known liar, torturer, and war criminal on your board doesn't scream trust.
Now, do I think Apple is a bad company? Hell yeah. I don't use their products either. But I think they're bad more for their behavior vis a vis IP (eg, the Samsung bezel claim) than for the constitution of their board.
edit: I totally forgot that they put Al Gore on the board. Is that who you mean? If so, yeah, I don't put him alongside Condi.
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/dropbox/advisors
A website with some relevant background: http://www.drop-dropbox.com
But first, she needs to apologize. This is obvious.
So yes, I think that anybody who regards her as a compelling part of their education needs to explain how they intend to avoid repeating her mistakes.
Here are plenty of links to primary sources: http://www.drop-dropbox.com/
Can something be "common knowledge" and still be false?
While the person involved later became a senior cabinet member as Secretary of State, at the time the war in Iraq was launched, Rice was not only not a "senior member of Bush's cabinet", but she wasn't a member of the cabinet at all.
At that time, she was Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (popularly, "National Security Advisor"), a position that is a member of the National Security Council, but not the cabinet.
She nevertheless, imo, played a pretty big role in paving the way for an attack on Iraq and was rewarded for that with elevation to cabinet afterwards.
Do you have any reason to believe that she was in the dark in 2003?
On an semi-related note, "Bush at War" is a great, quick read about the months following 9/11, with a breathless day-by-day account of the meetings and phone calls held between the President and his advisors. Woodward had unparalleled access during this period, including multiple in-person interviews with Bush both in Washington and in Crawford. Fair warning, he does not mince words on his dissatisfaction with Bush's performance.
[0]: https://www.amazon.com/Bush-at-War-Bob-Woodward/dp/074324461...
Sure, if the claim had been "had Bush's ear" rather than "was a senior member of Bush's cabinet", I wouldn't have said it was factually incorrect.
Does Condoleezza Rice being on the board make me less likely to work there? No. Does it make it less likely for me to invest in the company? No. Maybe your opinion is different, but a comment just hand waiving that Dropbox has a bunch of lying war mongers on their board makes no sense without that context.
Look, they have Guido and Jessica and Brandon among their ranks. That's big. I'm sure many of us love the idea of working with them.
But I also think that many people see Condi as a huge red flag and that, among everyday tech investors, yes, it will hurt them. Will it help their standing in beltway circles and among military contract investors? Yeah, it probably will.
But it's a dangerous game. There's no reason for Rice to be able to live a normal life after what she has done. This is pretending that the huge changes that the world has undergone in the past 10 years are a thing of fiction. It's mindblowing, really.
Here's a lot more reading on the subject: