The board can sack the CEO, usually with a simple majority vote. That's just how boards work.
What's not normal is any kind of special investor right to sack the CEO unilaterally.
What's not normal is any kind of special investor right to sack the CEO unilaterally.
> what is even the purpose of a board in a multi-class share structure with the founder holding above 50% voting shares.
This is a question about governance in general. The details of what happened at Automattic are irrelevant.
It's nice to imagine things; I was once a kid as well, and imagination is the most powerful force on the planet, no doubt about it. I've been a scientist for 15+ years, so trust me, I know how nice it is to daydream about the "could-be"s and the "possibilities".
But, unfortunately, reality takes precedence over imagination. It's like these Avengers and Star Wars movies, I'm sure you've enjoyed them. It'd be really, really, really fun if they were real... but they're just... not, you know? On my end, I was fortunate enough to learn this during my teen years. It's good to let your imagination run wild, but always keep a foot in reality. It will save you a lot of trouble.
I took my time to explain this because it is a topic I have devoted a lot of time to, and I wanted to share it with you with the best intention of improving your life as well. I wish you the best with that, lad :).
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. The reality is that Matt had all the cards in his hand, and no amount of "argumentation," Hacker News armchairing, good wishes, or "imagination" will ever change that. You could ask the ousted board members if it did! Lmao.
Of course, one might discuss what would've happened if Matt had lost. If the terms were different, if the board had more power, or as another young fella here was saying, "what if they signed a clause that says they cannot be ousted", I mean, those are all really interesting topics to discuss, don't get me wrong, but it is also equally interesting to talk about other imaginary things here like, "what if we had wings and could fly?" or "what if we didn't need to eat and drink water?" and so on.
With no intent to diminish the power of imagination, I was respectfully arguing from the point of view of reality.