Hacker News Reader

Boards serve in part to guide networking and policy for executives, and some are required to be external. It makes complete sense to have executives from other large corporations like Marriott.

Marriott doesn't seem to stand out as any further away from software than any of the other board members, so maybe I'm not understanding your question; what about Marriott specifically caught your eye?

View on HN

He would probably like to know why it makes sense to hire these external heads. If you were talking about the most outlandish of these board members, why would you say they deserve to be on the board? (I'm genuinely asking here as I don't know why myself)

Boards are required, and there are different kinds of board members, some of them are are appointed and/or voted in by shareholders. So it's not exactly a question of being "deserving". While Microsoft is probably going to have some sway, this process is not necessarily about Microsoft picking people to guide their development strategy, or picking people who are in their best interests. This is sometimes shareholders putting in people who can (among other things) - 1) oversee the corporate governance, make sure the company is playing fair with their stock, 2) put in people who are successful and can guide the company toward business success, 3) create a network for hiring & replacing executives when they leave for any reason. That said, having diverse input from other large businesses seems like it's always going to be an advantage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com