And FB is a lesson to a lot of companies and the public not to allow the same dual class stock structure. Zuckerberg can cash out a lot of his equity and still be the controlling force behind FB even though other people "own" a majority stake of the stocks and equity.

> This and previous submission about the Automattic board attempt to fire the founder should be used as a lesson that you should never ever give up control of your company to anyone.

I'm afraid in this case, this "should never" barely makes Mullenweg's top 10.

Is your implication that the world is a better place if it is impossible to remove someone like Matt from control of a company?

No, I said it would be better for the founder to not be put in a position where he/she can be fired.

If a founder is going to VCs or the markets in general for funding, there's no way to really do this. I don't see how the vast majority of founders can realistically expect others to fund their companies and still let the founder have the final say on all company matters.

If founders are willing to self-finance or finance based on cash-flow/collateral, that's a different story. But if you're selling majority stakes of your company's equity to others in order to finance your operations and growth, the equity owners should get a majority vote in how your company runs.

> I don't see how the vast majority of founders can realistically expect others to fund their companies and still let the founder have the final say on all company matters.

By not selling the controlling majority stake in their company, or retain super-voting rights. Anything to not give anyone the possibility to take their company from them.

> Facebook is a good example on how to structure your company to keep control of it.

Yes, there's a lot of lessons we can take away from Facebook. Most are not positive lessons, mind you.