Look a the comment I originally responded to. They complained that two out of three items had no substance, therefore we can't have a serious conversation. That is, specifically, what I was addressing.

> I still don't know why it should get attention though. So they don't have an executive director? Why should anyone care?

> You keep trying to say things, without saying why anyone should care about this stuff, or why it is bad.

It's specifically stated in the tweet. Not having an executive director leaves the chair with more power. Amazon is the chair. Amazon has chosen to let the position go unfilled which results in their own position having more power.

He goes into more detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513656

Actually asking questions about that, like you are here, is the outcome I was calling for, as opposed to ignoring it because of other statements, as the original comment I replied to was.

> It is on you, to both say what is happening, as well as for you to say why it is bad, and what the concern is.

No, you're placing me as someone on the one side of the argument, when the side is irrelevant. My point was that ignoring everything said because of portions that don't add up is not a valid way to assess the information. That doesn't require me to take a side, and in fact taking a side just makes it easier to people to dismiss my point and assume my goal is something else, as I suspect you did.