He did personally cause the first issue because he did the initial review that was bloody awful.
That's fine, have your opinion.
nd as much as there is no doubt a team that organised what went up for auction I don't for a second believe that Linus wasn't aware that it had been and should have known better too.
So you didn't really complete your sentence but I'm guessing what you are trying to say is that Linus should have known that it needs to be returned and he should not have sold it. Is that fair?
You realise that some companies do let them keep stuff because it's not worth the effort of sending it back?
He has no way of knowing what conversation has happened between his team and billet lab and what arrangement was made. If a leader is second guessing every decision his team is making then that company won't last. If his team hands him a box of items and tells him to auction in it. He can't go digging through it and double checking their work. The processes should be in place to do that for him.
Genuine question does your team leader micro manage you at work? Or are you the team leader doing the micro managing? Because I don't understand how anyone thinks this is a practical way for a business to work. Surely you have experience in an actual company right not a tiny mom and pop store. How do you think it is practical for one man to micro manage everything?
To add as noted he is to blame for the response and lie that they as a company had resolved the issue satisfactorily prior to Steve's video which we know they had not.
So that is why people are directly blaming him as he took responsibility by perpetrating a lie and fed false claims to the community at wide to try and cover up their mistakes as a whole.
Linus for that is why he is getting mauled here and rightly deserves to be.
I didn't say anything because I still need to watch the video and read the response. However I'm not going to trust someone rundown of the situation when their bias/emotions has led them to conclude that one person should be micro managing and double checking the work of a 100+ person company.
You make a valid point, but at the same time if i was to start auctioning items my company owned off for charity i'd have to run that past someone senior. For an event like LTX it's guaranteed that someone senior would have have to approve those items for auction and I would think he would be aware or at least show an interest in certain elements of the show. Considering how much "pride" he himself talks about LTX you can bet he runs his eyes past everything, might not write it, might not be in control of it sure, but he would have at the very least seen it.
You can pass the missed/ignored (however you wish to interpret it) e-mails off as a employee error sure, but the auction doesn't qualify for the same "pass" that's on him.
Depends on what is being auctioned. Also if we are speculating, senior could just mean the person who is the head of the warehouse where this stuff is being stored. and I can guarantee

that the person running the warehouse is in a different team to the people who are in direct communication with companies for video ideas.
Also see above about micro managing.
And then Linus responds to the GN video with misleading language:
"To Steve, I expressed my disappointment that he didn't go through proper journalistic practices in creating this piece. He has my email and number (along with numerous other members of our team) and could have asked me for context that may have proven to be valuable (like the fact that we didn't 'sell' the monoblock, but rather auctioned it for charity due to a miscommunication... AND the fact that while we haven't sent payment yet, we have already agreed to compensate Billet Labs for the cost of their prototype).
Could have asked for "context"...the fact that we already...."
Linus didn't "already" anything until AFTER the video went live.
This is scummy behavior, and the response was even scummier.
You realise there are two way to interpret the last sentence right because it is actually quite vague? He doesn't actually state who they agreed with. He never said that "we had already agreed
with billet labs to compensate them on the cost of the prototype". Yet that is how everyone is reading it.
You realise that external payment and compensation is not a decision that the initial LMG employee could have made and would need to be escalated internally? Just to avoid confusion that doesn't mean going straight to the CEO for a decision.
So the other way to read it is that internally this was raised and a decison was made to pay them. It could have been waiting for a final sign off for all we know. Only 4 days had passed between the email and GNs video.
So maybe Linus was lying through his teeth or maybe Linus was talking about an agreement being made internally. We don't know but don't let that let that stop your biases and emotions guiding you to the answer you want to be true. I will wait for more information.