I like Jeff so I'm not knocking it, but why is he listed as CTO in the about page if he left the company?

  • 2
    @Lix - I am not suggesting kicking him out. I guess I'm really into correct data, if he's gone he's gone - why would you keep reference of something that doesn't exist? – JonH Mar 13 '12 at 18:07
  • 1
    Well - he was last seen on the site (MSO) 10 hours ago and his last answer was yesterday. I don't believe he will disappear at all :) – Lix Mar 13 '12 at 18:13
  • 40
    W​​​​​h​​​​​o​? – mmyers Mar 13 '12 at 18:13
  • Still listed as CEO - possibly a mistake - perhaps a transition period is the reason behind this. – Lix Mar 13 '12 at 18:14
  • 1
    @mm - too soon...too soon... – Lix Mar 13 '12 at 18:14
  • Also, does he still have a veto...? ;-) – Arjan Mar 13 '12 at 18:16
  • 5
    Closed by the moderators who close just about everything. – JonH Mar 13 '12 at 19:54
  • 6
    Yeah, those despot moderators... They're nothing but trouble. – Robert Harvey Mar 13 '12 at 22:59
  • It's a conspiracy... – yannis Mar 14 '12 at 1:56
  • 3
    Post reopened by Popular Demand. – Josh Caswell Mar 15 '12 at 18:34
  • @Spolsky - you've got this great system called stackoverflow/meta that you don't even use. – JonH Mar 16 '12 at 19:40

Jeff Atwood is no longer listed in http://stackexchange.com/about/management.

However, he is listed as co-founder in http://stackexchange.com/about/team and mentioned in http://stackexchange.com/about.

  • 3
    I don't think they're planning on wiping the memory of his involvement from existence, so he can probably stay on the /about page =) – Josh Darnell Mar 15 '12 at 18:51
  • 1
    +1 for /about/team but -1 for /about. – Pops Mar 15 '12 at 19:17
  • Hes no longer listed because I made this post, he sure as hell was on there a few days ago. – JonH Mar 16 '12 at 16:43
  • @JonH I do not doubt that. Just stating what currently is the case. – N.N. Mar 16 '12 at 16:50

Yannis had it right. I can't reveal any details without forfeiting my own life, but suffice to say, there were Templars and Zombie Unicorns involved. Oh yes. This rabbit hole goes deep...

It definitely wasn't due to a simple oversight resulting in that page being chock full of crufty, out-of-date information. That's what they want you to think...

  • 2
    And he gets to keep his ♦?! :) – Benjol Mar 16 '12 at 6:08
  • 8
    -1 - Posted a serious question - why is it that a mod has to post something that he/she feels is funny. How about a serious answer? if I posted this as an answer it would been closed, downvoted, locked, etc. – JonH Mar 16 '12 at 19:42
  • 8
    @JonH: You left a comment yesterday asking for an answer, so here's your answer. If you don't like the humor, that's fine - I didn't particularly like the direction comments were headed in either. I do appreciate you bringing this up, since that page did need to be updated, but if you're getting seriously worried when it takes a couple days to update a bit of background information that, frankly, very few people ever read... You could use a bit of humor. – Shog9 Mar 16 '12 at 19:53
  • 1
    @Shog9 - I don't get seriously worried. I'm very much into common data and "automatic updates" have you. You have a central system in place that contains "common" data so there shouldn't be a lapse in something like that. If I went to the presidents website the day after Obama was elected and it still showed Bush as the president its plain wrong. This was the same case...not that I am pro obama or bush..just saying. – JonH Mar 16 '12 at 19:55
  • No, I understand. Like I said, that page had gotten woefully out of date, and should have been updated regardless of whether or not Jeff was still here doing his thing. I think there was a plan in place to re-do it as part of a larger project (they're doing some photo shoots in NYC right now), but updating it sooner didn't hurt. – Shog9 Mar 16 '12 at 20:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .