Process just for the sake of process doesn’t make it a useful function. You can usually spot a useless administrative process by the words ‘rubber stamp’ which was used in this article to describe the later approval by the board.

In practice that idealistic oversight which such a process is supposed to bring about weren’t being followed by the board regardless. If they did it without also caring then I don’t see how the investors or public are better off for it, other than to check a checkbox.

It’s certainly useful for finger pointing later on but that doesn’t mean Page would have acted differently had they went through the process.

If they find it necessary to observe the process for ‘risk management’ then fine. But it has to still be done earnestly and to be relevant here it has to be clear this was the stopgap or protection layer needed in that situation, particularly for dealing with sexual assault allegations.

In exactly what universe is 100-200B in Market Cap not the point? Moreover, Larry and Sergei still own more than 50% of the voting rights of the company. So exactly what is the point of standing on ceremony?

Nobody said he did.

Turns out people are very happy to reward results. No one needs to do everything them self.

The king sips wine from his golden chalice while his pawn's die on the battlefield.

Think about the alternative - somebody does a measurably great job, growing you a new multi-billion business from zero, even making you a dominant player. Later, that person ends up as a suspect of an unrelated crime, so you deny them any reward. Why would anyone with great potential want to work for you? From outside, it could all look like there is some possibility you orchestrated the whole problem to avoid paying, e.g. by analyzing that person's weaknesses, then paying somebody else to be a bait etc. There are indeed a few cases where co-founders were baited by VCs into illegal acts like buying drugs or hiring escorts and later coerced to "do the right thing" or else...

That's probably not a signal you'd like to send.

well, he kind of was fired (asked to leave)

I think it could in fact be the only issue.

Now I have not gone through all the news on this, I don't have the time. My point is that the presumption of innocence is baked into our legal framework (morally, legally and philosophically) and Andy (last I recall) has not admitted to, been charged with nor convicted of any crime. So in theory, the "issues" that I suspect you are referring could arguably be moot.

From LP's perspective (and I can only speculate what that could be), I can see the challenge in justifying withholding a compensation package from someone who did in fact create tremendous value for you knowing that while there has been ample time to press charges for his alleged crimes no charges have been pressed.

Is an accusation that is not followed through enough to justify reneging on a commitment made? Is sleeping with someone you work with enough to renege on a commitment made? Tough questions that I don't have the answer to. Anecdotally, I live in NYC and have 3 Google couples in my apartment building and none of them are the same age (so presumably, there may or may not be some title / comp/ role differential).

Anyway, not so black and white in my opinion.