There was a thread for reporting on the incident, and another for the official follow-up. There's not much discussion to be had; most of these are witch-hunt posts.

He's certainly no perfect angel, but character assassination on HN will get flagged unless it's actually newsworthy.

Not many people on this planet can claim to be responsible for an outage of this scale. What leads to this, and more importantly, what can be learned from this, deserves a discussion.

Then discuss it, in your organization, among customers of this clearly broken software. Unless the submission is genuinely newsworthy, it's going to usually get flagged because it's not news. Slandering mistakes like this is vitriolic and quite literally incapable of producing meaningful change.

I get where you're coming from, but discussing which decisions lead to something of the scale like this, deserve to be talked about from more than just one angle.

Your post sounds like you want to defend the "one" person responsible for the actual problem, which is something I fully understand and care about. I myself didn't read the 4000+ upvotes thread at all, because it was not about the actual problem, but about ranting.

I think a problem of this scale emerges from a culture, and the only job of a CEO is establishing culture. Which is why I think we have to discuss the role of a person which happened to allow something like this to happen twice within just a few years, and more importantly, what can be learned from their mistakes.

I'm sorry you missed your opportunity to comment in the main thread. There are thousands of users on this site that have flagging capability, and I can't read their minds. But I suspect the overall desire to flag these extra threads stems from the fact that the news has been reported on, and people have moved on. HN isn't a multipurpose soapbox, it's a news aggregator. If it's not news...

Send an email to the address in the guidelines page. dang has already said that they don't monitor for @-mentions.