4 ms·
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
by tinco 13d 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 13d agoIt's already criminal from the sound of it
- jeltz 13d agoYeah, but I am doubtful that the board wants to involve the police.
- JumpCrisscross 13d 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 13d agoQuite likely but I still doubt anyone will involve the police despite crimes very likely having been committed.
- JumpCrisscross 13d ago> I still doubt anyone will involve the police Didn't a Board member resign today?
- embedding-shape 13d agoBut that's less interesting for the involved parties. The more interesting question for them: Will it make us more money?
- reverius42 13d agoThis is why Sam Altman is in charge at OpenAI and not the board members that tried to fire him.
- _bent 13d agoA 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 13d 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 13d agoThere 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 13d agoAlso because most of the investors, by ownership, are Matt.
- 21asdffdsa12 13d agoUp next, the leaking of the boards internal communications. All the dirty laundry - more at 11.