I think I was very specific in the OP and the WSJ reference.
But to spell it out: Jed McCaleb is a cofounder of MtGox and Ripple. MtGox collapsed, is defunct, and is under investigation by multiple governments and regulatory agencies. Ripple dropped 40% in one day when Jed liquidated.
I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder whether Jed is the right person to be on the board of a new digital currency, given the track record at the last two organizations.
If you want to establish reliable evaluations of trust in a human, you have to stay away from biases and blaming statements. Yes, Jed was a cofounder of Mt. Gox. Yes, Mt. Gox caught on fire and burned to the ground. However, to establish a logical connection between those two statements requires a truthfully evaluated statement regarding how Jed was responsible for the fire. To my knowledge, Mark was the one responsible for that fire, not Jed. Mark was responsible for the legal, fiscal, and operational health of that system. Not Jed. You have not pointed to a statement that causes this to evaluate the two statements together and provide correlation.
If you can't do that much, then it's just a blaming statement based an associative bias.
I've been in a bad situation before with co-founders and it didn't end well for anyone. I can't speak for what happened at Ripple with Jed, but the guy has a right to go out and work on what he believes in without being unfairly judged for taking actions that were well within his right of exercising in the past.
95% of the coin is being given away and the effort is decentralized in nature. A 5% fee for the continued development of this platform and a fair amount of control over it's direction seems overly reasonable to me. Clearly Jed and his team care about creating something that is beneficial to everyone. I'd rather see speculation about the possible benefits than a rathole over something someone got bent about during the Ripple deal.