4 ms·

I feel for him and the people in his wake. Benevolent dictators of open source are great for productivity until benevolence gives way to malevolence. At this p

I feel for him and the people in his wake. Benevolent dictators of open source are great for productivity until benevolence gives way to malevolence. At this point, if he stepped down it would be seen as giving in. So highly unlikely until the legal dust settles a bit. I also agree with other commenters that it's not a mental breakdown but more of a poorly executed strategy that's been in the works for awhile. To take Wordpress more into a closed source hybrid ecosystem. And at this point, anything Matt does in favor of Automattic's business plan will blow up on social. My bet is this will continue for another 6 months at least until Automattic's revenue increases or flatlines. But yeah, I'm curious about the mental toll when founders go through these types of hyper public events. The startup world needs a lot more discussion and guidance for mental health.

ethbr1 2y ago
> Benevolent dictators of open source are great for productivity until benevolence gives way to malevolence. Autocracy is more efficient, with the best leaders. Democracy is more stable, with the worst leaders. The suboptimal cases are autocracy with bad leaders or democracy with good leaders. I think it's also pretty common that autocratic leaders go badly quickly. The same focus and dedication that drove them also makes it unlikely they'll suddenly decide to step away cleanly. Instead, they'll decide that everyone else is wrong, they're the ones that really put in all the work, {insert rationalization here}, and fight change.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > The suboptimal cases are autocracy with bad leaders or democracy with good leaders If we're talking real-life dictatorships and republics, the latter make much better use of brilliant leaders' talents. In part by not having a power struggle at the end that, on a coin flip, decides if the work survives.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    In the short or intermediate term? I'd argue that democracy is almost always a roadblock to a great leader's ability to execute their vision quickly and fully. On the other hand, it often wins out in the long run by not losing as much when the inevitable terrible leader comes to power. (As well as providing a pressure release mechanism to prevent populist revolution)
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > democracy is almost always a roadblock to a great leader's ability to execute their vision quickly and fully Quickly and fully, sure. In the end, however, good ideas see daylight. (Even if it means the other side co-opts and renames it!) That doesn’t happen in autocracies because the same people remain in power longer; this means by the time the opposition dies everyone who supported or potentially remembered it (or the opportunity it was meant to capitalise on) is gone. More than that, republics have historically been far superior at integrating other cultures. That process of appropriation means the source for good ideas is wider than the population, something autocracies can only achieve with money and thus not at scale and in limited scope. (Engineers working for the KSA aren’t changing its culture, they’re building a block.)
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        All good points! There can be some mal-incentives in democracies when it's in the opposition's interest for things to fail though (read: positioning for the next election). Imho, that's more a US problem of an overly-visible executive (whoever that currently is), to the detriment of congressional visibility (i.e. 95% of congress supported this, including your congresspeople). From a US perspective, parliamentary style systems, with checks to prevent German/Italian/Israeli-style deadlock when the party percentages don't line up, seem the superior implementation.
- emaro 2y ago
  Agreed. I also think that being an autocratic leader makes it worse, because you get used to yes-sayers around you and the power in general.

ethbr1 2y ago

> Benevolent dictators of open source are great for productivity until benevolence gives way to malevolence. Autocracy is more efficient, with the best leaders. Democracy is more stable, with the worst leaders. The suboptimal cases are autocracy with bad leaders or democracy with good leaders. I think it's also pretty common that autocratic leaders go badly quickly. The same focus and dedication that drove them also makes it unlikely they'll suddenly decide to step away cleanly. Instead, they'll decide that everyone else is wrong, they're the ones that really put in all the work, {insert rationalization here}, and fight change.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> The suboptimal cases are autocracy with bad leaders or democracy with good leaders If we're talking real-life dictatorships and republics, the latter make much better use of brilliant leaders' talents. In part by not having a power struggle at the end that, on a coin flip, decides if the work survives.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  In the short or intermediate term? I'd argue that democracy is almost always a roadblock to a great leader's ability to execute their vision quickly and fully. On the other hand, it often wins out in the long run by not losing as much when the inevitable terrible leader comes to power. (As well as providing a pressure release mechanism to prevent populist revolution)
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > democracy is almost always a roadblock to a great leader's ability to execute their vision quickly and fully Quickly and fully, sure. In the end, however, good ideas see daylight. (Even if it means the other side co-opts and renames it!) That doesn’t happen in autocracies because the same people remain in power longer; this means by the time the opposition dies everyone who supported or potentially remembered it (or the opportunity it was meant to capitalise on) is gone. More than that, republics have historically been far superior at integrating other cultures. That process of appropriation means the source for good ideas is wider than the population, something autocracies can only achieve with money and thus not at scale and in limited scope. (Engineers working for the KSA aren’t changing its culture, they’re building a block.)
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      All good points! There can be some mal-incentives in democracies when it's in the opposition's interest for things to fail though (read: positioning for the next election). Imho, that's more a US problem of an overly-visible executive (whoever that currently is), to the detriment of congressional visibility (i.e. 95% of congress supported this, including your congresspeople). From a US perspective, parliamentary style systems, with checks to prevent German/Italian/Israeli-style deadlock when the party percentages don't line up, seem the superior implementation.
emaro 2y ago
Agreed. I also think that being an autocratic leader makes it worse, because you get used to yes-sayers around you and the power in general.