This is what happens when your company (notoriously) moves away from having meritocracy as a core value: you put people in charge of things who don't have the expertise to run them very well.
Not if they didn't uphold the values written on it. But publicly repudiating some values diminishes the chance of upholding them, and failing to uphold those values in particular is what causes downtime.
The alternatives to meritocracy are organizing relations of dominance and submission around some other criteria other than competence (typically reproducing established hierarchies of privilege from one generation to the next) or anarchy (in the very general sense of having nobody in charge). We know they didn't choose anarchy — it's not even clear how that would be possible inside a shareholder-owned corporation — and we can see from the results that they didn't put the most competent people in charge, but people outside the company can only guess who they did choose to put in charge.
https://www.businessinsider.com/githubs-ceo-ditches-meritocr...