Matt Mullenweg’s 33-hour removal from Automattic becomes a striking example of how conventional corporate governance can break down when a founder retains overwhelming voting power. The account moves quickly from the board’s September 9 attempt to replace Mullenweg with CFO Mark Davies to Mullenweg’s return, presenting the confrontation as both a serious leadership crisis and an unusually chaotic piece of tech-industry theater. That combination gives the story immediate momentum, although the deliberately mocking tone sometimes competes with the significance of the underlying governance dispute.
The clearest part of the explanation is the distinction between the board’s authority to remove a CEO and Mullenweg’s claimed ability, through his 84% voting control, to replace directors and effectively reverse their decision. That detail makes the otherwise bewildering sequence much easier to understand. Rather than treating his comeback as mysterious corporate maneuvering, the presentation identifies the structural reason the attempted leadership change could collapse so quickly.
There is also useful attention paid to the unresolved question of why the board acted in the first place. The ongoing WP Engine litigation and accusations concerning missing Signal history and phones are presented as possible context, while Mullenweg’s own belief that Silver Lake was involved in a campaign against him is identified as his theory rather than established fact. That distinction matters because the episode offers no direct evidence establishing either explanation as the board’s actual motivation, and employees are described as remaining without a clear account of what happened.
Mullenweg’s behavior after the removal supplies much of the episode’s entertainment value. His Slack messages about becoming a “pirate,” removing other administrators, moving to the WordPress.org Slack, and publicly commenting on the attempted ouster turn what could have been a dry corporate-governance story into something far stranger. The narration leans heavily into ridicule, however, with jokes about Burning Man, feces, homelessness and Mullenweg’s personality. Those lines make the presentation energetic, but they also blur the boundary between reporting the unusual events and editorializing about the people involved.
The financial aftermath provides the story with its strongest concrete consequence. According to the account presented, Davies and Chief Legal Officer Andy Mason arranged severance terms during Mullenweg’s absence that included a year of salary, health insurance and immediate stock vesting, leaving Automattic owing them more than $8 million after Mullenweg returned and fired them. It is an extraordinary claim and central to the title’s premise, but the brisk presentation gives little room to examine the agreements, their authorization or the circumstances under which they were created.
Structurally, the episode is impressively efficient. It establishes the attempted removal, explains Mullenweg’s voting leverage, follows his public reaction, covers his restoration and lands on the multimillion-dollar severance consequence without allowing the complicated chronology to become confusing. The sponsor segment arrives only after the main story has essentially concluded, which is less disruptive than inserting an advertisement into the middle of the corporate drama, though its extended technical example still creates an abrupt shift away from the subject.
Pros
- The explanation of Mullenweg’s 84% voting control makes the rapid reversal of the board’s decision understandable.
- The chronology turns a complicated leadership struggle into a concise and easy-to-follow narrative.
- The presentation appropriately distinguishes Mullenweg’s theory about Silver Lake from an established explanation for the board’s actions.
- The reported $8 million-plus severance consequence gives the corporate conflict a concrete financial dimension.
- Mullenweg’s Slack posts and “pirate” persona provide memorable details without requiring the story to rely entirely on abstract governance issues.
Cons
- Mocking commentary about Mullenweg and Burning Man sometimes overwhelms the more substantive corporate-governance questions.
- The board’s actual reason for removing Mullenweg remains unresolved, leaving the central motivation behind the conflict uncertain.
- The extraordinary severance arrangements are described quickly without much examination of how they were approved or structured.
- Serious allegations connected to the WP Engine litigation provide important context but remain allegations rather than demonstrated explanations for the attempted removal.
- The sponsor section is lengthy relative to an otherwise exceptionally compact story.
The remarkable speed of Mullenweg’s removal and restoration makes for an entertaining corporate saga, but the deeper value comes from showing how founder voting control can render an apparent boardroom victory temporary. Sharp pacing and a clear explanation of the power structure compensate for unanswered questions, while the aggressive humor occasionally makes a consequential governance dispute feel more certain and simplistic than the available account supports.
