6 ms·

> It seems like the larger problem is he maintains access of keys and systems as opposed to the board and can boot out anyone not loyal to him ( or any other ad

> It seems like the larger problem is he maintains access of keys and systems as opposed to the board and can boot out anyone not loyal to him ( or any other admin who could remove him). So what happens when the courts get involved? Because "he won, because he was the only one with the passwords," seems like a software engineer fantasy.

tinco 1mo ago
It's a true power struggle. As a software engineer I have actually fallen into the trap of thinking that because of the law or a contract something would happen. It is a softer power than I expected. The board wants to make money, that's why they hold shares and positions. If Mullenweg has the power to destroy value, that will be powerful leverage over them. If his employees side with him, if he holds the accounts, they'll have to negotiate carefully. Of course, you would need a lawyer to determine when this crosses from a civil dispute to a criminal dispute because at some point him using the keys when he's not authorized could be a crime and if they can get the cops involved that certainly changes the dynamic.
- mitxela 1mo ago
  It's already criminal from the sound of it
  - jeltz 1mo ago
    Yeah, but I am doubtful that the board wants to involve the police.
    - JumpCrisscross 1mo ago
      > I am doubtful that the board wants to involve the police They're almost certainly going to get sued by minority shareholders over this.
      - jeltz 1mo ago
        Quite likely but I still doubt anyone will involve the police despite crimes very likely having been committed.
        JumpCrisscross 1mo ago
        > I still doubt anyone will involve the police Didn't a Board member resign today?
  - embedding-shape 1mo ago
    But that's less interesting for the involved parties. The more interesting question for them: Will it make us more money?
- reverius42 1mo ago
  This is why Sam Altman is in charge at OpenAI and not the board members that tried to fire him.
  - _bent 1mo ago
    A big part in both stories is that the boards were unwilling to actually state what exactly the CEO did wrong or why they have lost confidence - be that professionalism or not wanting to deliver ammunition for lawfare - which perfectly sets up the CEO to position himself as a victim to the greed and power games of the shadowy board
    - palmotea 1mo ago
      > A big part in both stories is that the boards were unwilling to actually state what exactly the CEO did wrong or why they have lost confidence - be that professionalism or not wanting to deliver ammunition for lawfare - which perfectly sets up the CEO to position himself as a victim to the greed and power games of the shadowy board Which is really insane when you think about it. The CEO reports to the board, and since when have companies regularly provided real reasons for termination (I understand they try to say as little as possible, because there's no upside for them)? It's a coup when an underling "fires" his boss and takes control, but some CEOs managed to convince many that it's the opposite (or at least AstroTurf to that effect).
      - Joeri 1mo ago
        There are companies where the CEO reports to the board, and there are companies where the board exists to keep up appearances. We’re finding out in real time Automattic is the second kind. This should discourage investors, since an unbridled CEO is bad for them in the long term. But it won’t, because nobody thinks long term anymore.
        BobaFloutist 1mo ago
        Also because most of the investors, by ownership, are Matt.
- 21asdffdsa12 1mo ago
  Up next, the leaking of the boards internal communications. All the dirty laundry - more at 11.
riffraff 1mo ago
Reminds me of that story of the CEO of ARM China was fired but refused to return the chop which meant he was still in power.
- mkagenius 1mo ago
  What's a chop?
  - loeg 1mo ago
    https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/arm-china-investor-sues-company-escalating-ceo-spat-amid-sale-2020-09-16/ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/arm-china-investo... > Wu retains control of the Chinese unit via his possession of the company stamp which is necessary in China to authorize important bureaucratic procedures. Chop is another word for the stamp.
    - deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  - pezezin 1mo ago
    Seals used as signatures by pretty much everybody: individuals, companies, government institutions, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seals_in_the_Sinosphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seals_in_the_Sinosphere
    - thaumasiotes 1mo ago
      Something I find weird is that modern seals are mass-produced. There is no identification value, because anyone can trivially buy a seal that will make the exact impression of your seal. (For personal seals. I don't know what company seals involve.)
      - 1mo ago
code_biologist 1mo ago
Possession is 9/10ths of the law.
- reverius42 1mo ago
  I don't think that applies to Slack admin access.
  - maccard 1mo ago
    It absolutely does.
  - code_biologist 1mo ago
    In absence of a good enforcement mechanism, it absolutely does apply. Is Slack going to strip Mullenweg of admin control in absence of court order, as long as the Slack bills are paid? It would set a terrible precedent for them to do so unilaterally. Whatever the legal process this battle follows, it will be a year or two before it's even possible for a final ruling + court order for the handover of Slack admin control to happen. That's de facto Slack control for at least a year or two. If employees can be persuaded to move themselves + systems to a board controlled chat instance, that's an angle, but Mullenweg has stronger cards if he's liked by employees.
    - reverius42 1mo ago
      If the board can show they fired him and he's now accessing their systems without authorization, I don't think it's a civil matter, and criminal courts might move faster.
    - zbentley 1mo ago
      > It would set a terrible precedent for them to do so unilaterally. Speaking generally (not about Automattic), big SaaS have law enforcement desks that work on exactly this type of thing, and the "terrible precedent" is already widely set. Plenty of law enforcement outreach (which includes lawyers, courts, and actual law enforcement officials) results in pre-emptive compliance by SaaS companies. I would be massively surprised if Slack has not already done this in many cases, because most huge companies routinely do. That's neither generally good nor generally bad; whether it's the right move depends on the charge, requested actions by law enforcement, status of legal proceedings, and the values/diligence by which the SaaS business assesses the legitimacy and likely cost/benefit of a law enforcement request. Note that "pre-emptive compliance" doesn't always mean an email saying "hey, the FBI said you suck so we terminated your account". There's a broad spectrum of tools available to a SaaS ranging from sending that email, to holding bespoke contract re-negotiations (which are functionally always in process between a SaaS and a huge customer) hostage to endless redlining rounds, to enforcing ToS violations that the SaaS previously turned a blind eye towards due to customer size. > Whatever the legal process this battle follows, it will be a year or two before it's even possible for a final ruling + court order Preliminary injunctions can be issued in days to weeks, not months to years, in all sorts of civil and criminal cases in all sorts of jurisdictions. Those can take the form of "don't change stuff with your admin access" or "grant admin control to someone else"-type orders. In cases where a service administrator is materially involved, injunctions are also easy to get on the basis of evidence preservation. That's a pretty sharp tool. Failure to comply with those opens individuals and businesses up to way more legal penalties and tighter timeframes. Even if an injunction is later vacated/dismissed/modified, the legal argument that you violated it because you knew that would happen is an extremely tough sell.
mitxela 1mo ago
If he really did this, he's going to prison, but not for a few years. Defrauding shareholders is one of the worst things you can do, because it attacks the system directly.
- laszlojamf 1mo ago
  No, people defraud shareholders all the time these days and get away with it. Look at Boeing
  - mitxela 1mo ago
    What did the Boeing CEO do to defraud shareholders?
- nicce 1mo ago
  How is Sam Altman still on loose then
  - 21asdffdsa12 1mo ago
    There is always a bigger fish, and sometimes the shareholders are the small fish and never realize.
- code_biologist 1mo ago
  ... literally all of the SPAC mania was about circumventing regulation and defrauding shareholders in public markets. All of the SPACs are worth a fraction of what they were at listing. I don't see anyone being prosecuted. Edit: I take that back, [1] this guy got prison time. Do Chamath next. [1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-ceo-special-purpose-acquisition-company-sentenced-prison https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-ceo-special-purp...
liveoneggs 1mo ago
Eventually someone is 'root' Up until recently (and my intervention) my work had multiple aws accounts tied to individual people, where they had inherited a personal account into the billing org. There are also, in business use, some domains where an executive personally owns the registration but has delegated DNS into the company. There is no written agreement. A former employer completely lost access to a couple of social media accounts (twitter/$company, etc) after laying off enough people.
mc32 1mo ago
That reminds me of the San Fco "network administrator" who would not provide the passwords to anyone in city gov't and brought things down to a standstill. Eventually he capitulated and provided the governor the passwords to their networks. Some people!

tinco 1mo ago

It's a true power struggle. As a software engineer I have actually fallen into the trap of thinking that because of the law or a contract something would happen. It is a softer power than I expected. The board wants to make money, that's why they hold shares and positions. If Mullenweg has the power to destroy value, that will be powerful leverage over them. If his employees side with him, if he holds the accounts, they'll have to negotiate carefully. Of course, you would need a lawyer to determine when this crosses from a civil dispute to a criminal dispute because at some point him using the keys when he's not authorized could be a crime and if they can get the cops involved that certainly changes the dynamic.

mitxela 1mo ago
It's already criminal from the sound of it
- jeltz 1mo ago
  Yeah, but I am doubtful that the board wants to involve the police.
  - JumpCrisscross 1mo ago
    > I am doubtful that the board wants to involve the police They're almost certainly going to get sued by minority shareholders over this.
    - jeltz 1mo ago
      Quite likely but I still doubt anyone will involve the police despite crimes very likely having been committed.
      - JumpCrisscross 1mo ago
        > I still doubt anyone will involve the police Didn't a Board member resign today?
- embedding-shape 1mo ago
  But that's less interesting for the involved parties. The more interesting question for them: Will it make us more money?
reverius42 1mo ago
This is why Sam Altman is in charge at OpenAI and not the board members that tried to fire him.
- _bent 1mo ago
  A big part in both stories is that the boards were unwilling to actually state what exactly the CEO did wrong or why they have lost confidence - be that professionalism or not wanting to deliver ammunition for lawfare - which perfectly sets up the CEO to position himself as a victim to the greed and power games of the shadowy board
  - palmotea 1mo ago
    > A big part in both stories is that the boards were unwilling to actually state what exactly the CEO did wrong or why they have lost confidence - be that professionalism or not wanting to deliver ammunition for lawfare - which perfectly sets up the CEO to position himself as a victim to the greed and power games of the shadowy board Which is really insane when you think about it. The CEO reports to the board, and since when have companies regularly provided real reasons for termination (I understand they try to say as little as possible, because there's no upside for them)? It's a coup when an underling "fires" his boss and takes control, but some CEOs managed to convince many that it's the opposite (or at least AstroTurf to that effect).
    - Joeri 1mo ago
      There are companies where the CEO reports to the board, and there are companies where the board exists to keep up appearances. We’re finding out in real time Automattic is the second kind. This should discourage investors, since an unbridled CEO is bad for them in the long term. But it won’t, because nobody thinks long term anymore.
      - BobaFloutist 1mo ago
        Also because most of the investors, by ownership, are Matt.
21asdffdsa12 1mo ago
Up next, the leaking of the boards internal communications. All the dirty laundry - more at 11.

riffraff 1mo ago

Reminds me of that story of the CEO of ARM China was fired but refused to return the chop which meant he was still in power.

mkagenius 1mo ago
What's a chop?
- loeg 1mo ago
  https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/arm-china-investor-sues-company-escalating-ceo-spat-amid-sale-2020-09-16/ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/arm-china-investo... > Wu retains control of the Chinese unit via his possession of the company stamp which is necessary in China to authorize important bureaucratic procedures. Chop is another word for the stamp.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- pezezin 1mo ago
  Seals used as signatures by pretty much everybody: individuals, companies, government institutions, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seals_in_the_Sinosphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seals_in_the_Sinosphere
  - thaumasiotes 1mo ago
    Something I find weird is that modern seals are mass-produced. There is no identification value, because anyone can trivially buy a seal that will make the exact impression of your seal. (For personal seals. I don't know what company seals involve.)
    - 1mo ago

code_biologist 1mo ago

Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

reverius42 1mo ago
I don't think that applies to Slack admin access.
- maccard 1mo ago
  It absolutely does.
- code_biologist 1mo ago
  In absence of a good enforcement mechanism, it absolutely does apply. Is Slack going to strip Mullenweg of admin control in absence of court order, as long as the Slack bills are paid? It would set a terrible precedent for them to do so unilaterally. Whatever the legal process this battle follows, it will be a year or two before it's even possible for a final ruling + court order for the handover of Slack admin control to happen. That's de facto Slack control for at least a year or two. If employees can be persuaded to move themselves + systems to a board controlled chat instance, that's an angle, but Mullenweg has stronger cards if he's liked by employees.
  - reverius42 1mo ago
    If the board can show they fired him and he's now accessing their systems without authorization, I don't think it's a civil matter, and criminal courts might move faster.
  - zbentley 1mo ago
    > It would set a terrible precedent for them to do so unilaterally. Speaking generally (not about Automattic), big SaaS have law enforcement desks that work on exactly this type of thing, and the "terrible precedent" is already widely set. Plenty of law enforcement outreach (which includes lawyers, courts, and actual law enforcement officials) results in pre-emptive compliance by SaaS companies. I would be massively surprised if Slack has not already done this in many cases, because most huge companies routinely do. That's neither generally good nor generally bad; whether it's the right move depends on the charge, requested actions by law enforcement, status of legal proceedings, and the values/diligence by which the SaaS business assesses the legitimacy and likely cost/benefit of a law enforcement request. Note that "pre-emptive compliance" doesn't always mean an email saying "hey, the FBI said you suck so we terminated your account". There's a broad spectrum of tools available to a SaaS ranging from sending that email, to holding bespoke contract re-negotiations (which are functionally always in process between a SaaS and a huge customer) hostage to endless redlining rounds, to enforcing ToS violations that the SaaS previously turned a blind eye towards due to customer size. > Whatever the legal process this battle follows, it will be a year or two before it's even possible for a final ruling + court order Preliminary injunctions can be issued in days to weeks, not months to years, in all sorts of civil and criminal cases in all sorts of jurisdictions. Those can take the form of "don't change stuff with your admin access" or "grant admin control to someone else"-type orders. In cases where a service administrator is materially involved, injunctions are also easy to get on the basis of evidence preservation. That's a pretty sharp tool. Failure to comply with those opens individuals and businesses up to way more legal penalties and tighter timeframes. Even if an injunction is later vacated/dismissed/modified, the legal argument that you violated it because you knew that would happen is an extremely tough sell.

mitxela 1mo ago

If he really did this, he's going to prison, but not for a few years. Defrauding shareholders is one of the worst things you can do, because it attacks the system directly.

laszlojamf 1mo ago
No, people defraud shareholders all the time these days and get away with it. Look at Boeing
- mitxela 1mo ago
  What did the Boeing CEO do to defraud shareholders?
nicce 1mo ago
How is Sam Altman still on loose then
- 21asdffdsa12 1mo ago
  There is always a bigger fish, and sometimes the shareholders are the small fish and never realize.
code_biologist 1mo ago
... literally all of the SPAC mania was about circumventing regulation and defrauding shareholders in public markets. All of the SPACs are worth a fraction of what they were at listing. I don't see anyone being prosecuted. Edit: I take that back, [1] this guy got prison time. Do Chamath next. [1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-ceo-special-purpose-acquisition-company-sentenced-prison https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-ceo-special-purp...

liveoneggs 1mo ago

Eventually someone is 'root' Up until recently (and my intervention) my work had multiple aws accounts tied to individual people, where they had inherited a personal account into the billing org. There are also, in business use, some domains where an executive personally owns the registration but has delegated DNS into the company. There is no written agreement. A former employer completely lost access to a couple of social media accounts (twitter/$company, etc) after laying off enough people.

mc32 1mo ago

That reminds me of the San Fco "network administrator" who would not provide the passwords to anyone in city gov't and brought things down to a standstill. Eventually he capitulated and provided the governor the passwords to their networks. Some people!