Thread

1. xnx · 1790439571 · focus · HN ↗

   Fireship pointed out that the board members gave themselves a generous severance package in the very brief interim, so that was very possibly the whole plan.

   1. tptacek · 1790441715 · focus · HN ↗

      Yeah, if Mullenweg really did control a majority of the voting shares, the previous board are the villains in this story no matter what you think of Mullenweg.

      1. Analemma_ · 1790443090 · focus · HN ↗

         What were they supposed to do? If you’ve been following Mullenweg’s behavior, he’s clearly unstable, and while this is admittedly armchair diagnosis, a lot of his recent writing gives me strong stimulant psychosis vibes. Granted maybe you shouldn’t take a job as a board member at a company where the CEO has 83% of voting shares to begin with, but once you’re there, you still have a fiduciary duty to do what’s best for the company, so IMO they were obligated to at least try and eject him.

         1. tptacek · 1790443158 · focus · HN ↗

            Resign.

            1. Brian_K_White · 1790456678 · focus · HN ↗

               That's merely an option, not the only option, or the only valid option, or even necessarily the most valid option.

               Do the right thing and make someone else be guilty of actively firing me for doing the right thing, (and leave the door open for the theoretical possibility that they don't), rather than me being guilty of giving up, is a perfectly valid stance, even if it's not what you would do.

               It's one thing to say "well obviously Matt will just do the obvious thing we all "just know" he will" and it's quite another for Matt to actually do it. One is conjecture, the other is recorded fact history. Matt can no longer say he wouldn't do something like fire an entire board for the crime of doing their jobs. It's valuable to force the issue.

               1. tptacek · 1790456856 · focus · HN ↗

                  It's a valid stance for a random individual, but not for a board member, who assumes additional obligations that are external to their own personal morals. If your morality and your board duties conflict, your obligation is to resign.

                  1. bradleyjg · 1790461098 · focus · HN ↗

                     I think noisy resignation is the rational move for various reasons.

                     But I don’t think it’s required. The director under Delaware law is not conceptualized as a proxy for the whims of a majority of the voting rights.

                  2. Brian_K_White · 1790476249 · focus · HN ↗

                     Incorrect. Resignation is merely one of your infinite valid options. Your obligations are mostly not to do various incorrect things, not to do any particular specific thing other than pursue a goal.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.