[koolba]

> It also lost both its chief operating officer and chief technology officer, increasing the load on Dorsey, whose time is divided because of his other job -- as CEO of Square Inc.

I find it interesting that the CEO of Twitter has two jobs. It's really in line with our future of a "sharing economy" where one job isn't enough to survive. It'd be funnier if it was Travis Kalanick (Uber CEO) but this is pretty good too.

Now joking aside, why the heck do investors allow the CEO to have a second job? If I were an investor at either of those companies I'd be pretty pissed off. Unless there's some magical synergy that can be had between them (and for the record I don't think there is), this is bad news on both ends.

[rtpg]

http://www.recode.net/2016/8/11/12417064/twitter-stock-owner...

>Add on the fact that much of the board is new, with little financial stake in the company. It’s possible they are loyal to CEO Jack Dorsey, who essentially appointed them, and don’t have the financial incentive to push change the way older, more frustrated investors might.

[koolba]

I like how the chart in the article you linked to has Steve Ballmer's job title as "Owner, Los Angeles Clippers".

[goseeastarwar]

Hero worship. Jack has done what few else could achieve: he built two multi-billion dollar businesses.

The problem is that doesn't mean he can run both at the same time nor does it mean he's the correct long-term steward of both simply because he was there first.

It really falls on the respective boards to keep the situation honest, but nobody wants to be on the board that fired Steve Jobs again.

[snarf21]

Because they were desperate for someone to save the value it has/had and they figured 50% Jack is better than 100% anyone else