No, I was pleased that it is possible for somebody who makes full disclosure as I've done, not only of the contributors, but also how the money is spent.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
The time has come for all evangelists to practice full financial disclosure. The world is watching how we walk and how we talk. We must have the highest standards of morality, ethics and integrity if we are to continue to have influence.
I mean, I don't want to sound - of course it's very nice, people come up and say appreciative things about my work. But the loss, in terms of privacy and anonymity, is no small thing to me.
We have lost the idea that something can be secret because it is valuable, not because it's shameful. If you share everything with everybody, what have you got for yourself? I tweet and I blog, but I save a lot for myself. Not because I am ashamed.
Sure, some journalists use anonymous sources just because they're lazy and I think editors ought to insist on more precise identification even if they remain anonymous.
I made my money in an honest way. And I have declared it all. By co-founding Infosys along with Mr. Murthy and others, I earned financially.
There can be a lot done if you are not so particular about who gets credit for it.
Now I believe that people need to understand what's happening in my campaign, and they're going to get three or four snapshots of that, with plenty of time before the first disclosure happens in June.
Non-disclosure in the Internet Age is quickly perceived as a breach of trust. Government, corporations and each of us as individuals must recalibrate how we live and share our lives appropriate to the information now available and the expectations of others.
The vanity of being known to be trusted with a secret is generally one of the chief motives to disclose it.
I love the idea of sharing some of what we find in the research phase with a select community of people early on as a perk for their donating, and then gauging their feedback.
No opposing quotes found.