zlacker

It seems odd to have it described as “may resign.” Seems like the worst of all worlds.

That’s like trying to create MAD with the position you “may” launch nukes in retaliation.

>>ethanb+(OP)
Presumably some will resign and some won't. They aren't going to get 550 people to make a hard commitment to resign, especially when presumably few concrete contracts have been offered by MSFT.

>>ethanb+(OP)
It's easier to get the support of 500 educated people at a moments notice by using sane words like 'may'. This is rational given the lack of public information as well as a board that seems to be having seizures. Using the word 'may' may seem empty-handed; but it ensures a longer list of names attached to the message -- allowing the board a better glimpse of how many dominoes are lined up to fall.

The board is being given a sanity-check; I would expect the signers intentionally left themselves a bit of room for escalation/negotiation.

How often do you win arguments by leading off with an immutable ultimatum?

>>ethanb+(OP)
WSJ said "500 threaten to resign". "Threaten" lol! WSJ says there are 770 employees total. This is all so bizarre.

>>gorlil+E6
Right, but the absolute last thought you want in the board's head is: "they're bluffing."

200 people or even 50 of the right people who are definitely going to resign will be much stronger than 500+ who "may" resign.

Disclaimer that this is a ludicrously difficult situation for all these folks, and my critique here is made from far outside the arena. I am in no way claiming that I would be executing this better in actual reality and I'm extremely fortunate not to be in their shoes.