This is not a calm and reasoned debate about who is the right CEO for Uber. This is the press being angry that their reporting of several scandals at Uber hasn'

This is not a calm and reasoned debate about who is the right CEO for Uber. This is the press being angry that their reporting of several scandals at Uber hasn't resulted in a scalp. First paragraph of the article: As the calamities amass at Uber, many people — including me — have called for new leadership. Usually, the job of hiring and firing a CEO falls to a company’s board of directors. Yet in a March 21 phone call with the press, board member Arianna Huffington said that Uber’s board had not even discussed the matter. An honest reporter would have stopped there. Uber's CEO has not been fired because Uber's board does not seem to want to fire him. The rest of the article is conjecture. Surely the only reason the board hasn't fired him (as "many people — including me — have called for") must be that they can't because he has conned them into accepting his own supermajority. Their inability is so total that they can't even discuss the matter -- which, despite the writer's failure to secure even a single quote to support it, simply must be their foremost concern. After all, how could they possibly disagree with "many people — including me"? Inconceivable. Snark aside, the board has plenty of leverage against Kalanick - they could definitely debate the issues, most likely take a vote of censure. If they have deep differences of opinion with him, and he resorts to overriding them with this supermajority, they can resign their seats, and mark down the value of their holdings in the company. His supermajority would not prevent Kalanick from finding himself CEO of a $20B company with no board.