Employers generally have an obligation to keep personal data confidential, especially sensitive information like a job application.
Whether that applies in this particular case or not, i'm not going to offer an opinion, but you really should shut up.
I get that it's particularly frustrating and hard to feel like you are being unfairly treated or whatever, but shut up anyway.
As the audience, with no horse in this race, I’m glad he keeps talking.
But my better angel wants me to duck tape his mouth shut before he does himself dirty.
Edit: Or if you’re a WPE fan, my better angel says to keep talking! Explain it all away! Share it all!
You really shouldn't, IMO.
For one thing, what parent poster is saying is that he might be violating someone's privacy. I get that that's fun from the sidelines, but I certainly don't think we should encourage employers to violate other people's privacy.
For another, we have a court system with lots of rules around it for a reason. These threads help people form opinions, but the truth is that none of the protections in place in a courtroom apply here. He, or his opposite party, could literally be lying about everything they're saying here and there's no way for us to know or evaluate it. He could be bringing up totally irrelevant facts while not talking about the actual important things, with his counterparty correctly not talking about it, but leaving the impression that there is nothing there. Etc.
As you say it is terrible, and they should not have done that. Irrespective of the legal outcome it taints them in my eye forever. That being said that particular horse has left the barn already. It is not like us third parties gigling from the sidelines will affect it.
> These threads help people form opinions, but the truth is that none of the protections in place in a courtroom apply here.
Yeah sure. People on the internet can lie. It is not like we believe everything which comes out of the mouth of any party ever. That is not a reason for me wishing them to shut up.
It would be in their best interest to stop talking. But it is not our job as third parties to enforce that or even encourage it. We are not his legal representation, nor we are his fairy godmother.
> He, or his opposite party, could literally be lying about everything they're saying…
Yes.
> … and there's no way for us to know or evaluate it.
That is not true. We can hear them out and then apply our logic, look at the things presented and can absolutely evaluate them. We don’t have as strong tools as people in a court case do. For example we can’t subpoena them, nor can we demand discovery. But that is how 99.9% of our interactions are. It is not like we only have to engage our critical faculties when it is about a court case. They have to be always engaged.
And it is important to remember that the likely outcome of any such evaluation is that “there is not enough info for me to know for certain”. That is not some weird edge case of critical thinking, but the default state of things.
You're right, I spoke more strongly than warranted. I was getting at this distinction - in a court case, there are real tools, both legal and investigative, that let you determine truth to a much higher degree than in random internet (or real life) conversations.
What I highly dislike is that the person who is acting responsibly legally, and who is probably acting more responsibly by trusting the court system to determine what should happen, is always the party that doesn't engage in this kind of talk. The side acting irresponsibly is trying to change public perception by sidestepping the actual legal mechanisms here, and we shouldn't usually let them.
(I'm speaking generally, in this case I feel less strongly because a lot of this is public knowledge.)
It is a double edged sword though. Sometimes people talk and they are convincing and the independently verifiable facts support what they say. Sometimes they make themselves look like a fool.
Just because one side talks doesn’t mean they win. Just here the side which runs their mouth is comming through (to me, in my perception) at best unprofessional, if not perhaps even a tad bit vindictive and unhinged. Not a good look, even if they are right and legally win at the end.
https://ma.tt/2024/09/on-theprimeagen/
> I dropped on the livestream for ThePrimeagen earlier today after a colleague pinged me that he was talking about the Silver Lake / WP Engine situation.
> Afterward, I also privately shared with him the cell phone for Heather Brunner, the WP Engine CEO, so she can hop on or debate these points. As far as I’ve heard she hasn’t responded. Why is WP Engine scared of talking to journalists live?
> For instance, on September 26, 2024, Mullenweg gave an interview on the X platform during which he gave the CEO’s personal cell phone number to the interviewer and encouraged him to contact her. She was in fact contacted by the interviewer.
You're meaning apart from the active law suit yeah? ;)
That does not help your position. IANAL, but stop talking.
I don't believe you will gain anyone's sympathy by resolving a misunderstanding about who-said-what-when in some inconsequential matter somehow apparently also part of this drama. Some if it seems like pure distraction that I don't see why anyone outside of the individuals involved should have ever heard about in the first place.
I second the sentiment that you don't appear healthy and could suggest maybe let someone else take a seat in one of the (3? 4?) chairs for a change? At least from the outside, you still seem free to choose your focus yourself. Maybe that window will be closing...
Anything said and documented prior to the hearing will be combed through. Even tiny inconsistencies will be cherry picked and entered as evidence to raise doubt of the claims made.
I'm all for the sentiment behind a CEO addressing ongoing lawsuits candidly, but in reality its just a bad idea. Statements made without being fully vetted by council, with the context of all other statements already made, will inevitably have issues that could throw a wrench in the case.
That’s not necessarily reality, and you are not as righteous as you believe. Even if you are - your words could be misconstrued.
I cannot understand why your legal team is not advising you to stop making public comments. Or perhaps they are, and you aren’t listening to them? Either way, you are being incredibly foolish.
>> If you decline, on Monday morning, I tell Greg Mondres: * Lee's refusal to negotiate terms to resolve our conflict. * Your interviewing with Automattic over the past year. * I will possibly tell the press all of the above.
That's just so obviously threatening and uncalled for. Even if Brunner were considering jumping ship, you shouldn't threaten someone into accepting an offer.
Now, you don't know me from Adam, but I want you to strongly, strongly consider that this thing that you've been afraid of happening, has actually already happened. And that is, that you have become Evil Matt -- with the little horns on your head and everything. And to get back to being Good Matt, you're going to have to let some things go.
"No problem is so formidable that you can't walk away from it." -- Charles Schulz
And honestly in the territory of being legally actionable.
The only thing you are doing right now is lessening your chances at getting justice, regardless of how objectively right you may be.
Maybe there gets a point you become so wealthy, that ego is all that matters. But you're supposedly a smart guy who cares about his products, community and company, why not take the practical and economically safe route of duking it out in court?
That’s really, really harsh. Regardless of your reasons for feeling this way, this is not the appropriate forum for a personal attack like that
> 92. Mullenweg’s premise was false, as WPE’s CEO had never interviewed with or negotiated a job offer with Automattic. To the contrary, back in 2022 Automattic had asked if she would be interested in running wordpress.com, but she politely declined.
(edit: I have no idea who is right, but it's just not correct to read page 35 as saying that)