Mullenweg has returned as CEO after attempted board ouster
Automattic，WordPress.com 的母公司，已正式确认其创始人 Matt Mullenweg 已回任 CEO 。此前一周公司经历了剧烈动荡——董事会曾投票决定让 Mullenweg 带薪休假，此举引发了大量内部与外界的揣测。公司一位发言人澄清，董事会及主要高管仍全力支持 Mullenweg，暂时平息了有关高层治理的直接不确定性。
本周早些时候发生的试图罢免始于董事会最初将 Mullenweg 从职务上免职，并任命首席财务官 Mark Davies 为临时 CEO 。虽然董事会对该决定表示完全信任，但交接过程立即遭遇抵抗。消息人士称 Mullenweg 拒绝接受董事会的决定，并采取实际行动收回权力，包括将其他管理员从公司内部的 Slack 频道移除，以便直接与员工沟通。
在整个争议期间，Mullenweg 始终采取强硬且面向公众的姿态。他通过内部消息宣布重掌控制权，甚至自称"海盗"，并在社交媒体上转发同事与高管的支持性贴文。冲突的具体细节（包括董事会投票的最初原因）大多未对外公开，但显然这是一场重大的内部权力斗争，创始人最终成功维持了自己的领导地位。
在领导层动荡中，关于董事会构成是否会变化仍有疑问。报道称董事会成员 Toni Schneider（在 Bluesky 任负责人）可能已辞职，但公司和 Schneider 本人均未正式确认。目前事态似乎暂时稳定，Automattic 正在应对 Mullenweg 所称的其职业生涯中"第五次政变"所留下的余波。
Automattic, the parent company of WordPress.com, has officially confirmed that founder Matt Mullenweg has returned to his position as CEO. This announcement follows a highly tumultuous week during which the company board had voted to place Mullenweg on a paid leave of absence, a move that sparked significant internal and public speculation. A company spokesperson clarified that Mullenweg retains the full support of the board and key executive leadership, putting to rest the immediate uncertainty surrounding the firm's top-level governance.
The attempted ouster occurred earlier in the week when the board initially removed Mullenweg from his role, designating Chief Financial Officer Mark Davies as interim CEO. The decision was communicated as having the board's full confidence, but the transition faced immediate resistance. Sources indicated that Mullenweg refused to accept the board's decision, taking active steps to reclaim his authority, including removing other administrators from the company's internal Slack channel to communicate directly with staff.
Throughout the dispute, Mullenweg maintained a defiant and public-facing stance. He signaled his return to control via internal messaging, famously labeling himself a pirate, and utilized his social media presence to share supportive posts from colleagues and executives. While the specifics of the conflict, including the original reasons for the board's vote, remain largely private, the situation appeared to be a significant internal power struggle that the founder successfully navigated to maintain his leadership.
Amidst the leadership flux, questions remain regarding potential changes to the board's composition. There have been reports suggesting that board member Toni Schneider, who serves as the lead at Bluesky, may have stepped down, though no formal confirmation has been provided by the company or Schneider himself. With the situation seemingly stabilizing for now, Automattic continues to navigate the aftermath of what Mullenweg described as the fifth coup attempt of his career.
348 comments • Comments Link
• Automattic 目前的局势仍不明朗，据报导，CEO 通过掌控内部通信系统而非正式得到了董事会批准便恢复了职权。
• 在法律所有权与运营控制出现分歧的权力争斗中，掌握数字基础设施（例如 Slack 管理员权限或公司印章，即中国法中的"chop"）成为重要筹码。
• 即便董事会罢免了 CEO，如果其仍保留技术访问权限，也常会在实际层面形成障碍，导致一种事实上的控制状态，可能持续多年，直到法院裁决或政府介入打破僵局。
• 对股东欺诈或违反公司治理的指控属于严重法律问题，但执法不一，这使人质疑董事会是否会在此类内部权力斗争中诉诸法律手段。
• 科技行业的高压文化和兴奋剂滥用常被视为促成领导层行为失常与公开冲突的因素之一。
• Automattic 的商业模式和领导层正面临越来越多审视；观察者指出，外界感知到的不稳定与内部戏剧性可能会疏远企业客户，并阻碍未来人才的加入。
• 虽然 WooCommerce 在活跃安装数量上占优，但其总商品交易额（GMV）明显低于 Shopify，这引发了关于这些平台实际市场影响力的讨论。
• 现代公司的治理结构——创始人通过投票权或技术控制保留过大权力——被批评为更像封建而非民主的治理方式。
• 针对创始人的激烈甚至尖刻的公众反应，催生了一个在线监控的"cottage industry"；有人认为这是一种自发的情绪宣泄，也有人担心其具有协调性或可能带来有害的网络暴力效应。
• 开发者社区对 WordPress 的技术依赖日益审慎，因为权力过度集中在个人手里，会给建立在该生态上的大量网站带来系统性风险。
Automattic 内部持续的冲突反映出一个更广泛的紧张关系：董事会在法律上拥有的权力，与创始人对公司基础设施的直接、且常常不受约束的实际控制之间的矛盾。尽管外界普遍认为公司内部的不稳定会吓跑人才和合作伙伴，这场争论同时触及公司治理、领导伦理以及依赖集中式开源软件所带来的深层风险。各方对于公众反弹是源于糟糕领导引发的自发反应，还是一种潜在有害的集体围攻意见不一，但普遍共识是当前局面高度失衡。无论如何，这种围绕公司未来的不确定性凸显了当大型数字生态系统与个人行为及精神状态紧密相连时所呈现的脆弱性。 • The current situation at Automattic remains unclear, as reports suggest the CEO is asserting control through possession of internal communication systems rather than a formal board-approved reinstatement.
• Maintaining control of digital infrastructure, such as Slack admin access or company stamps (the "chop" in Chinese business law), provides significant leverage in power struggles where legal ownership and operational control diverge.
• Board-level decisions to remove a CEO often face practical hurdles when the CEO retains technical access, creating a de facto state of control that may persist for years until court orders or government intervention resolve the stalemate.
• Defrauding shareholders or breaching corporate governance is a serious legal issue, yet enforcement is often inconsistent, leading to skepticism about whether boards will involve law enforcement in these internal power struggles.
• The tech industry's high-pressure environment and the prevalence of stimulant use are frequently cited as contributing factors to erratic leadership behavior and public outbursts.
• Automattic's business model and leadership have faced increasing scrutiny, with observers noting that perceived instability and internal drama may alienate enterprise clients and discourage future talent.
• WooCommerce holds a dominant position in the number of active installations, though its total gross merchandise volume (GMV) is significantly lower than Shopify's, fueling debate over the true market impact of these platforms.
• The structure of modern corporations, where founders often retain outsized power through voting mechanisms or technical control, leads to critiques of corporate governance as being effectively feudal rather than democratic.
• The intense, sometimes vitriolic, public reaction against the founder has created a "cottage industry" of online monitoring, which some see as organic frustration and others perceive as a potentially coordinated or toxic response.
• Technical reliance on WordPress is increasingly viewed with caution by the development community, as the centralization of power in the hands of a single individual creates systemic risks for the significant portion of the web built on this ecosystem.
The ongoing conflict within Automattic reflects a broader tension between the legal power of corporate boards and the practical, often unchecked, power of founders who retain direct control over company infrastructure. While observers point to the company's internal instability as a potential deterrent for talent and enterprise partners, the debate also touches on deeper questions regarding corporate governance, the ethics of leadership, and the risks inherent in relying on centralized open-source software. There is a clear consensus that the current situation is highly dysfunctional, though perspectives vary on whether the backlash is a natural, organic reaction to poor leadership or a potentially harmful environment of public bullying. Regardless, the uncertainty surrounding the company's future underscores the fragility of large-scale digital ecosystems when they become inextricably linked to the personal conduct and mental state of a single individual.