> It’s not relevant. Is anyone expecting him to be the CEO?

The article quotes a shareholder rallying behind Musk's offer as justifying his support for Mr Musk's personal involvement.

The article includes quotes from shareholders such as “He has an established track record at Tesla,” and “He is the catalyst to deliver strong operating performance at Twitter.”

I'm not aware of a single instance where shareholders were excited by the prospects of the new owner delegating managent to a random unknown employee.

Imparting one’s philosophy onto a platform that is for the most part static is the most one could do without bastardizing the platform.

Twitter’s biggest moves since its inception aside from TOS/legal/anti-evil have been character count, ads, timeline algorithm, gifs/videos/polls, and connecting NFTs to your avatar. Nothing groundbreaking on the user side.

Musk could get kudos for simply hiring an intern to add an “edit button” as he’s already hinted at.

Yet that is what he has done at both Tesla and SpaceX. He set the company vision and direction and his hand picked executives execute that...

I look forward to seeing who Elon pickes to replace all board members and executives at twitter

I dont really understand how Elon could just ignore Twitter, if something happens in Spacex, they can handle it in private, but if something happens in Twitter, like Trump is unbanned and he starts to share Russian propaganda, everyone is going to know about it right away. Is Elon going to sit and focus on other things while his phone is going mad?

>>Is Elon going to sit and focus on other things while his phone is going mad

I would assume he would smile and laugh just like the rest of us non-authoritarian left people (we are the majority) as the Left drives itself insane with non-sense like what you just claimed....

When the deal succeeds TWTR will also become private.

I think Gwynne Shotwell at SpaceX would disagree with that statement. As to day to day running of SpaceX, Elon did exactly that and seems to have picked the perfect person.

I haven't seen much evidence he's good at delegating. Such as how he remains in control of his own Twitter despite the SEC warnings and penalties.

He doesn't need to spend much time with his companies to damage them.

Don’t you think it would have been very visible if he were bad at delegating? His companies tend to produce results - not always on time, but that’s to be expected in greenfield projects right?

Not only do they produce results, they tend to save humanity while doing so.

> He doesn't need to spend much time with his companies to damage them.

Couple of questions spring to mind:

1. Can you define "damage"?

"Elon Musk poised to collect $23bn bonus as Tesla beats targets" [0]

"Tesla reported record revenue and profits for the first quarter of 2022 [..]"[1]

2. Would you say the current management of Twitter are doing a good job on behalf of their shareholders?

"Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates; revenue forecast light"[2]

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/21/elon-musk-s...

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdurot/2022/04/20/elon-musk-...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/technology/twitter-misses-ad-revenue...

> I haven't seen much evidence he's good at delegating.

You think Elon Musk created two of the most valuable companies in the world without being good at delegating?

I think pretty highly of him, but not that highly.

Which of his companies are damaged?