Quite a few parts of it are petty, and honestly feel like he was at war with most of the leaders. He wasn't responsible for disaster recovery, or reliability,

Quite a few parts of it are petty, and honestly feel like he was at war with most of the leaders. He wasn't responsible for disaster recovery, or reliability, yet he was reporting to the board (going above his reporting chain), telling them that the company wasn't doing enough because it can't handle _multiple_ data center outages at once? Very, very few companies could handle that. If twitter can handle their primary datacenter failing, then they do have a working DR plan. They aren't lying. Is the DR plan to Mudge's liking? Obviously not, but his idea of a DR plan is out of line with what the vast majority of the industry considers a reasonable DR plan. Similarly, mDAU vs user/bot numbers aren't lies. The company switched their reporting metric. They're accurately reporting their growth metric to the board, and to the shareholders. The raw user numbers could actually matter to the board/shareholders, but the board could have required them to report them and didn't. Just because they aren't reporting the metric you'd prefer them to report doesn't mean they're lying to anyone. There are a number of legitimate complaints in the disclosure related to poor security practices, but many of them feel like internal problems that don't rise to the level of crimes. Sadly, he may have had a hard time moving the needle on those issues because he was spending his time fighting everyone. He's a gifted engineer, and may even be a gifted leader, but that doesn't mean he was doing a good job in the culture he was working in. I read the whole document, and the majority feels like someone running headfirst into bad cultural issues and burning out while making enemies.