News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by Spinfusor on Wednesday September 09, 2026 @06:29PM (#49635464)
If he has 84% voting share, can't he just fire the board?
Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by reticulates on Wednesday September 09, 2026 @06:54PM (#49635746)
Firing the board is the least Matt-like option. He has absolute control and ownership over the WordPress project, I think it is more likely that he starts his own Automattic splinter company and removes Automattic from the WordPress project. I’d guess he is already filing incorporation docs for Antimatter Inc. or some other Matt themed name.
Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by crabmusket on Thursday September 10, 2026 @12:25AM (#49638393)
Laundermatt?
Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by thih9 on Thursday September 10, 2026 @06:32AM (#49641371)
Checkmatte?

But seriously if I had to recommend something, not escalating seems best for everyone involved.

Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by pluc on Thursday September 10, 2026 @07:34AM (#49641954)
Aftermatt
Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by everfrustrated on Thursday September 10, 2026 @01:51PM (#49647719)
New-mattic (pneumatic)?
Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by thih9 on Thursday September 10, 2026 @04:47PM (#49649962)
Intimatte - non sequitur.
Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by michelb on Friday September 11, 2026 @03:59PM (#49664502)
Matthatter
Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by ChallengeEup237 on Thursday September 10, 2026 @05:02AM (#49640621)
Automattic has exclusive commercial rights to the WordPress trademark. That was the self-dealing deal he made when he "gave" the trademark to the WordPress Foundation. He can start a new commercial WP company, but it won't have that trademark so would be limited in the same ways he was trying to force on WP Engine etc.
Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by burnte on Thursday September 10, 2026 @10:23AM (#49644205)
> He has absolute control and ownership over the WordPress project

The only thing he has that can't be moved or recreated are the trademarks. In an extremely short span of time everyone went from Xfree for their X server to Xorg, and Xfree limped along for a bit before falling over. This is the beauty of open source.

Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by chris_wot on Wednesday September 09, 2026 @06:33PM (#49635525)
If Mullenweg attempts to fire the board that just suspended him, he would be weaponizing proxy votes against the very investors who originally granted them. While founder proxies are often structured to be irrevocable, using them to purge the board would almost certainly trigger a massive legal battle, attempts by investors to breach or revoke the proxy agreements, and severe financial instability for the company.

While he technically holds the votes required to disband the board, executing that move would ignite a corporate civil war rather than a clean transition of power.

Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by FreakLegion on Thursday September 10, 2026 @01:23AM (#49638747)
> While he technically holds the votes required to disband the board

This is very unlikely. True Ventures almost certainly controls at least one seat. (Until Phil Black left last year they actually held two seats, but that doesn't mean they had the right to. Either way, at the moment it's just Toni Schneider.)

Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by ljm on Wednesday September 09, 2026 @10:02PM (#49637421)
If he's lost the confidence of the board and does that, how much is his company worth?
Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by riffraff on Thursday September 10, 2026 @01:44AM (#49638893)
Does it matter? He owns it and doesn't plan to flip it, and they have enough income to go on for a long time.
Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by pluc on Thursday September 10, 2026 @06:23AM (#49641282)
He is self-described "post-economic" after all.
Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by FreakLegion on Thursday September 10, 2026 @01:08AM (#49638676)
In most venture-backed companies no, because board seats are one of the things you give major investors in exchange for their money.

In this case? Possibly! Ann Dunwoody and Sue Decker look like independents, and he might be able to unilaterally replace either or both of them.

Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by safety1st on Thursday September 10, 2026 @07:57AM (#49642277)
I've always wondered about these two. Dunwoody is a retired Army general. Decker insofar as I can tell is one of the suits who ran Yahoo into the ground. As a platform technology company why would you want these people on your board? I could see having the right sort of government suit on it, maybe. I couldn't see "turned Yahoo into an irrelevant hellhole of ads" as relevant experience.
Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by toast0 on Thursday September 10, 2026 @08:40PM (#49652083)
> Decker insofar as I can tell is one of the suits who ran Yahoo into the ground.

I don't think that's really right, but it's hard to tell. In my mind, as someone who was there from 2004-2011, things were going ok while she was there. The Microsoft acquisition would have been nice from a $ point of view, and I think they could have been convinced to give all the employeed an Xbox 360, but Microsoft would have smothered the brand and its products... It's possible the acquisition would have been held up in anti-trust for a long time and a large period of uncertainty.

IMHO the running into the ground really started under Carol Bartz with the ads and search deal with Microsoft whereby Bing was supposed to take over everything. But performance in terms of latency, quality, and $/search was worse than when Yahoo was doing it and the ads and search teams at Yahoo didn't shrink as expected, because the work didn't shrink as expected. Not surprisingly, when you drop revenue and don't drop costs, financial performance does not improve.

Partnering with Google would have made more financial sense, but that wasn't an option because of anti-trust... Probably should have accepted the acquisition and accepted fate... partnering with Microsoft later was a bad choice, maybe they could have backed out once the numbers were clear.

Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by safety1st on Sunday September 13, 2026 @03:44AM (#49681120)
Good information, thank you!
Re:Matt Mullenweg put on 'leave of absence' by zrn900 on Friday September 11, 2026 @11:56AM (#49660545)
> As a platform technology company why would you want these people on your board?

Investors tell you to put them on the board and you do it. The worst mistake WordPress made was taking investment from private equity and assorted Wall Street types.