Is this one of those situations where someone pretends to enjoy pissing people off, so they can pretend that being widely disliked doesn't bother them?
Is this one of those situations where someone pretends to enjoy pissing people off, so they can pretend that being widely disliked doesn't bother them?
Looking at his history I'm thinking persistent, undermedicated manic episode. Not that this is an excuse but I'm bipolar and that feels familiar. That's what Kanye has (again, not an excuse for...
Looking at his history I'm thinking persistent, undermedicated manic episode. Not that this is an excuse but I'm bipolar and that feels familiar. That's what Kanye has (again, not an excuse for anything).
The fucking audacity of that man. The WordPress community deserves so much better than this ass hole at the helm. I've attended a few local WordCamps over the years and they're always full of just...
The fucking audacity of that man.
The WordPress community deserves so much better than this ass hole at the helm. I've attended a few
local WordCamps over the years and they're always full of just the nicest, most inclusive people around. Not to mention how supportive the larger online community is.
I sincerely hope this continues to blow up in Matt's face. Whether that's via his removal from the helm, him going bankrupt from all the court cases, or a WP fork taking off thanks to a fed up community. Really hope this saga is the last any of us have to hear his name.
This was posted on Christmas Eve, less than two weeks after a court issued an injunction against the ouroboros of Automattic/Mullenweg/the foundation, which is a very good sign that things will go...
This was posted on Christmas Eve, less than two weeks after a court issued an injunction against the ouroboros of Automattic/Mullenweg/the foundation, which is a very good sign that things will go well for WP Engine in court.
So a judge told him he had to stop attempting to directly harm WP Engine during the legal proceedings, and his response is to pitch a fit and fuck with the WordPress users who weren't already thinking about packing up and leaving.
Maybe if this all blows up, people will switch to software that uses prepared SQL statements instead of a facade that looks like a prepared statement API, but is still just "sanitizing" and interpolating strings under the hood. In 2024.
All the business about the URL aside. I don't have any direct interest in the success or decline of WP, so I'm sure I'd feel more strongly if I did, but from the sidelines the situation is just...
All the business about the URL aside. I don't have any direct interest in the success or decline of WP, so I'm sure I'd feel more strongly if I did, but from the sidelines the situation is just sad. It seems at every turn the man has taken the perfect action to destroy confidence in the platform. I don't really know why he is doing this. If he truly believes he is right I can only conclude it's a disorder of some kind.
The lesson I try to take from it is that it's always important to have checks and contingencies in place to prevent a single person from destroying your business. Bus factor talks about considering losing critical contributors, but there must also be some more generalized factor regarding critical individuals turning malicious or being otherwise compromised. When that number is low and a lot of people depend on the product for their livelihood or safety - it's risky.
At some basic level I think it's the same kind of phenomenon we saw with XZ Utils. A single individual is compromised in some way, and you lose faith in this critical infrastructure. All indications I've seen are that Matt is the only one pushing for these kinds of actions, so you have this single individual - or at least a very small group of individuals and yes-men - compromising the whole thing.
However the lawsuits shake out, I hope that WP survives in some more decentralized way that's a little more resistant to bad actors, and I hope other platforms take note and try to make themselves more resistant. I don't really know a way to do that when the compromised individual owns and controls the organization. I suppose trading the company publicly solves this problem, but that creates others that are just as bad in the long run. Employee ownership might be a good model, depending on the product and the size of the company. I see most open-source platforms move to non-profits, which helps I guess? I don't really know enough about the control or power structures there. It seems not foolproof either (see Rust Foundation - although there is some nuance there with the difference between the "Project" and the "Foundation" that I don't really understand).
I can't speak to the overall problem of insulating an organization from damage by bad actors, but I can speak to how nonprofits are generally organized. It's actually very similar to how...
I can't speak to the overall problem of insulating an organization from damage by bad actors, but I can speak to how nonprofits are generally organized. It's actually very similar to how publicly-traded businesses are run: You have a board of directors (who are generally selected by the existing BoD to fill vacancies [yes, that's an understood weakness]) who keep an eye on things and support the general direction of the organization, and then you have an Executive Director (CEO) who does the overall operation of the organization at the direction of the BoD. The specific balance of power is always different depending on how involved the Board is, just like in any organization.
The fact that the BoD is self-selecting rather than being chosen by some outside group can lead to a true focus on the mission, or an unreasonable concentration of influence, depending on the organization.
Practically, non-profits aren't more resistant to bad actors in an operational way, but in a financial way. It's owned by the public, and thus no one can (easily) extract significant value from it. That limits how much anyone wants to try and control it for pecuniary reasons. If you could winkle your way into control of Amazon, you'd have billions of dollars. If you could gain control the World Wildlife Fund, you'd... be able to direct the efforts to protect endangered species.
I've found the opposite to be true: A BoD is put together by whoever founded the organization and is loyal to them. Usually someone with money and no real experience with the hands on work the org...
I've found the opposite to be true: A BoD is put together by whoever founded the organization and is loyal to them. Usually someone with money and no real experience with the hands on work the org does. The folks actually doing the work fall under the ED as you mentioned. The imbalance is that the BoD decide the direction and strategy for the organization, while the regular staff execute on it. To me this leaves a gaping hole of knowledge where the BoD don't always make decisions that are tethered to reality. If the ED was making poor decisions they could remove them from the organization, but there is no check or balance in the other direction.
I think that can be common in younger organizations, but over time both the founders and the original BoD leave. At that point, if the organization survives those transitions all that's left is...
I think that can be common in younger organizations, but over time both the founders and the original BoD leave. At that point, if the organization survives those transitions all that's left is the mission.
You're right that the BoD can be disconnected from reality. Half of the ED's job is running the organization, and the other half is managing the BoD so that they're properly informed and can make the right decisions.
Yeah, maybe it's different at US tech startups and non-profits, or in @rosco's particular field. However, all the orgs up here in Canada that have had a BoD that I've worked with/for, know someone...
Yeah, maybe it's different at US tech startups and non-profits, or in @rosco's particular field. However, all the orgs up here in Canada that have had a BoD that I've worked with/for, know someone who works at, or that I even know someone on the Board itself, haven't been like rosco describes, at all. And all the people I personally know who are/were members of a Board are/were former (often retired) executives from the same industry, a closely related industry, or a more broadly relevant industry (like marketing) that the orgs needed help with, which is why they joined the board in the first place.
E.g. My godfather was CTO of Interbrew/AB InBev, and after his retirement he joined the board of several smaller craft breweries, and brewing coops. My father was the President/CEO of (at the time) Canada's largest Database Marketing company (Hughes Rapp Collins), and was on the board of several non-profits and charities that greatly benefited from his Database Management, Direct Marketing, and Customer Relations Management experience. And my father's former boss at one of Canada's largest private equity firms (Edgestone Capital) is still on the board of a boatload of startups, non-profits, and NGOs that have greatly benefited from his business experience and connections.
And none of the Board members I know are/were blindly "loyal" to whoever founded the org either. They joined the Board because they were either asked to by someone in the org, or they themselves reached out to offer their assistance since they knew they could help, and genuinely believed in the org's mission. So if the Founder/CEO/Present/etc was consistently screwing up, they would have had no problems voting to have them removed or change roles. And while my view may be biased since I know so many business executives through my father and godfather who are/were on various Boards, I don't think totally sycophantic boards (like at Elon Musk's companies) are in any way the norm.
Looks like someone has updated the link. Thanks to whoever did! It was redirecting me to the submission page, probably why it required @mantrid to sign in.
Looks like someone has updated the link. Thanks to whoever did!
It was redirecting me to the submission page, probably why it required @mantrid to sign in.
I don't know why, but if I follow your link, I am required to log in to Reddit or use the app to access the content. Here's a link that lets me get in without an account:...
I don't know why, but if I follow your link, I am required to log in to Reddit or use the app to access the content. Here's a link that lets me get in without an account:
Is this one of those situations where someone pretends to enjoy pissing people off, so they can pretend that being widely disliked doesn't bother them?
Looking at his history I'm thinking persistent, undermedicated manic episode. Not that this is an excuse but I'm bipolar and that feels familiar. That's what Kanye has (again, not an excuse for anything).
The fucking audacity of that man.
The WordPress community deserves so much better than this ass hole at the helm. I've attended a few
local WordCamps over the years and they're always full of just the nicest, most inclusive people around. Not to mention how supportive the larger online community is.
I sincerely hope this continues to blow up in Matt's face. Whether that's via his removal from the helm, him going bankrupt from all the court cases, or a WP fork taking off thanks to a fed up community. Really hope this saga is the last any of us have to hear his name.
This was posted on Christmas Eve, less than two weeks after a court issued an injunction against the ouroboros of Automattic/Mullenweg/the foundation, which is a very good sign that things will go well for WP Engine in court.
So a judge told him he had to stop attempting to directly harm WP Engine during the legal proceedings, and his response is to pitch a fit and fuck with the WordPress users who weren't already thinking about packing up and leaving.
Maybe if this all blows up, people will switch to software that uses prepared SQL statements instead of a facade that looks like a prepared statement API, but is still just "sanitizing" and interpolating strings under the hood. In 2024.
All the business about the URL aside. I don't have any direct interest in the success or decline of WP, so I'm sure I'd feel more strongly if I did, but from the sidelines the situation is just sad. It seems at every turn the man has taken the perfect action to destroy confidence in the platform. I don't really know why he is doing this. If he truly believes he is right I can only conclude it's a disorder of some kind.
The lesson I try to take from it is that it's always important to have checks and contingencies in place to prevent a single person from destroying your business. Bus factor talks about considering losing critical contributors, but there must also be some more generalized factor regarding critical individuals turning malicious or being otherwise compromised. When that number is low and a lot of people depend on the product for their livelihood or safety - it's risky.
At some basic level I think it's the same kind of phenomenon we saw with XZ Utils. A single individual is compromised in some way, and you lose faith in this critical infrastructure. All indications I've seen are that Matt is the only one pushing for these kinds of actions, so you have this single individual - or at least a very small group of individuals and yes-men - compromising the whole thing.
However the lawsuits shake out, I hope that WP survives in some more decentralized way that's a little more resistant to bad actors, and I hope other platforms take note and try to make themselves more resistant. I don't really know a way to do that when the compromised individual owns and controls the organization. I suppose trading the company publicly solves this problem, but that creates others that are just as bad in the long run. Employee ownership might be a good model, depending on the product and the size of the company. I see most open-source platforms move to non-profits, which helps I guess? I don't really know enough about the control or power structures there. It seems not foolproof either (see Rust Foundation - although there is some nuance there with the difference between the "Project" and the "Foundation" that I don't really understand).
I can't speak to the overall problem of insulating an organization from damage by bad actors, but I can speak to how nonprofits are generally organized. It's actually very similar to how publicly-traded businesses are run: You have a board of directors (who are generally selected by the existing BoD to fill vacancies [yes, that's an understood weakness]) who keep an eye on things and support the general direction of the organization, and then you have an Executive Director (CEO) who does the overall operation of the organization at the direction of the BoD. The specific balance of power is always different depending on how involved the Board is, just like in any organization.
The fact that the BoD is self-selecting rather than being chosen by some outside group can lead to a true focus on the mission, or an unreasonable concentration of influence, depending on the organization.
Practically, non-profits aren't more resistant to bad actors in an operational way, but in a financial way. It's owned by the public, and thus no one can (easily) extract significant value from it. That limits how much anyone wants to try and control it for pecuniary reasons. If you could winkle your way into control of Amazon, you'd have billions of dollars. If you could gain control the World Wildlife Fund, you'd... be able to direct the efforts to protect endangered species.
I've found the opposite to be true: A BoD is put together by whoever founded the organization and is loyal to them. Usually someone with money and no real experience with the hands on work the org does. The folks actually doing the work fall under the ED as you mentioned. The imbalance is that the BoD decide the direction and strategy for the organization, while the regular staff execute on it. To me this leaves a gaping hole of knowledge where the BoD don't always make decisions that are tethered to reality. If the ED was making poor decisions they could remove them from the organization, but there is no check or balance in the other direction.
I think that can be common in younger organizations, but over time both the founders and the original BoD leave. At that point, if the organization survives those transitions all that's left is the mission.
You're right that the BoD can be disconnected from reality. Half of the ED's job is running the organization, and the other half is managing the BoD so that they're properly informed and can make the right decisions.
Yeah, maybe it's different at US tech startups and non-profits, or in @rosco's particular field. However, all the orgs up here in Canada that have had a BoD that I've worked with/for, know someone who works at, or that I even know someone on the Board itself, haven't been like rosco describes, at all. And all the people I personally know who are/were members of a Board are/were former (often retired) executives from the same industry, a closely related industry, or a more broadly relevant industry (like marketing) that the orgs needed help with, which is why they joined the board in the first place.
E.g. My godfather was CTO of Interbrew/AB InBev, and after his retirement he joined the board of several smaller craft breweries, and brewing coops. My father was the President/CEO of (at the time) Canada's largest Database Marketing company (Hughes Rapp Collins), and was on the board of several non-profits and charities that greatly benefited from his Database Management, Direct Marketing, and Customer Relations Management experience. And my father's former boss at one of Canada's largest private equity firms (Edgestone Capital) is still on the board of a boatload of startups, non-profits, and NGOs that have greatly benefited from his business experience and connections.
And none of the Board members I know are/were blindly "loyal" to whoever founded the org either. They joined the Board because they were either asked to by someone in the org, or they themselves reached out to offer their assistance since they knew they could help, and genuinely believed in the org's mission. So if the Founder/CEO/Present/etc was consistently screwing up, they would have had no problems voting to have them removed or change roles. And while my view may be biased since I know so many business executives through my father and godfather who are/were on various Boards, I don't think totally sycophantic boards (like at Elon Musk's companies) are in any way the norm.
The link is broken for me. Do you mean https://old.reddit.com/r/WPDrama/comments/1hlp08d/what_drama_should_i_create_in_2025/?
This is the link I posted?
Right?
Nope, I switched it out. Your link can be found in the topic log.
Looks like someone has updated the link. Thanks to whoever did!
It was redirecting me to the submission page, probably why it required @mantrid to sign in.
I don't know why, but if I follow your link, I am required to log in to Reddit or use the app to access the content. Here's a link that lets me get in without an account:
https://old.reddit.com/r/WPDrama/comments/1hlp08d/what_drama_should_i_create_in_2025/