"I'd like to hear CEO's opinion" probably doesn't mean "I wonder what the CEO thinks about public communication by his/her colleagues inside internet forums". I'm reminded English is hard even when I think I have a basic understanding of common speech patterns (parlance?).
Cloudflare is a solid company with a good reputation and has done a lot for general welfare of the internet. The staff there generally care about customers and it seems like they're trying to figure out what went wrong here, and of course preventing negative PR is always a bonus.
There's really not much of a process when you're a top officer at a company, you have the freedom and responsibility to exercise your judgement and do whatever it takes for the good of the organization.
From my perspective, a developer from the company the article is about arrives in the comment section. I ask an honest question about the communication process internal to the company. I am told this developer is the CTO and is supervised by the CEO. Then I state the fact that I would appreciate if we also knew what the CEO thinks about this situation.
I don't literally expect answers from the people I addressed and that's OK, they are probably too busy working on the subject matter. If they take time and write one, that is really admirable and I'd be thankful.
What I don't understand is why it is considered inappropriate to be curious about these topics, as judged by the amount of downvotes I received.
Maybe the tone I intended for my post got lost in translation, since I'm not a native English speaker.