Whilst this is a valid point in a general sense, and worth considering, we do have a legitimate interest in whether certain people are still working at certain companies, particularly in creative industries.
Particularly when our impression of those individuals was, as I think it was with Kyle Brink, at least "basically positive". Maybe we're grading on a curve for WotC, but he seemed like he was basically doing a good thing, and him communicating seemed to represent a positive after a truly huge amount of negative from WotC. It's not, I would suggest "none of our business" when he's been a public communicator for WotC and has appeared to be leading on certain positive directions for D&D.
Personally I work in the law and people - both lawyers and clients and even potential clients - absolutely do care if and to some extent why a lawyer they've worked with or even just admired left a business. They're not fungible. I don't think people like Kyle Brink are fungible either.
Now, I think perhaps what you're intending to warn against is a feeling of entitlement to and a desire for gossip, which, sure, but again, in creative industries, I don't think that's usually the motivator for wanting to know who is working where. I don't really care if so-and-so left because of creative differences with such-and-such, mildly fun as that can be to know, but I do care that they left, or were made to leave. Particularly with WotC who I think it's fair to said have had a degree of apparent caprice as to what their future for various games is. And particularly here because Kyle Brink was the public face of a lot of comments/suggestions/quasi-promises re: the OGL.
One other thing you didn't say but I think would agree with is that we shouldn't necessarily assume that because personnel left/changed things are automatically getting worse - but I also think we shouldn't be blind to personnel changes.
