3 ms·
This seems pretty easily explainable by Matt’s actions appearing to be hypocritical and antithetical to the views of people likely to comment on Internet messag
by Macha 13d ago
This seems pretty easily explainable by Matt’s actions appearing to be hypocritical and antithetical to the views of people likely to comment on Internet message boards. People value stability from infrastructure providers and Matt’s antics with wordpress.org during the WPEngine dispute salted the earth for his chances of getting support in a board dispute. Even Matt’s own previous posting here did him no favours.
Sometimes a broadly one sided reaction is just a broadly one sided reaction, no conspiracy needed.
- hypfer 13d ago> People value stability from infrastructure providers Yeah that mechanism I understand, and I do understand that this would lead to exactly this kind of politics. But.. that still means that it leads to this kind of politics, which was my point. I'm not interested in the politics. I'd like to know the reality.
- Macha 13d agoThe reality is that the board has the votes to remove Matt as CEO and Matt has enough shares that if the board is decided by simple 1 vote per share then he can replace them but without knowing the agreements with its investors and shareholders we don’t know if the boards mechanisms actually allow him to replace all the members. Since the company is privately traded, these aren’t published anywhere, so it’s unknowable for those of us in the peanut gallery (unless it eventually goes to court, which is likely unless those agreements are decisive).
- hypfer 13d ago[flagged]
- Macha 13d agoIf you’re inclined to see everything as a diversion and all criticism as inorganic, then I think it’s better to admit you just want someone to confirm your views and you’re not really looking to be convinced, as much as you phrased your question that way
- hypfer 13d ago[flagged]
- onli 13d agoWhat's your question? "Are there real people with opinion on this?"? Then yes, sure. My opinion matches what's the overall tenor of this thread. It's not astroturfing, mullenweg just has lost that much support.
- glenstein 13d agoYou would have to imagine that a big shareholder being able to neutralize ordinary functions of the board is outside, at a minimum, the spirit of that intended process. Though I'm sure that can be argued sixteen different directions.
- chuckadams 13d agoMatt can flex his 84% voting power, but proxies can be clawed back, at which point he'll be left with 30% voting power (that being the fraction he owns outright). At worst, that is, since it would take a united front of shareholders and years of messy litigation. I think most investors would rather just cut their losses and sell their position.
- deleted 13d ago[deleted]