The NYTimes: '“Working with telecommunications operators around the world is much larger than just a browser,” said Mitchell Baker, Mozilla’s co-founder and executive chairwoman, in an interview. “The stakes have grown.”Mozilla’s competition with Apple and Google’s Android system has created an expanding list of commercial contributors who are business partners, Ms. Baker said.
“Being the head of Mozilla is like being a head of state,” she said, adding, “Brendan had the technical vision. But he did not have the head of state part.”' This does not appear supportive of Brendan, or at the least is condescending. The NYTimes: 'Both Ms. Baker and Mr. Hoffman said that they tried to get Mr. Eich to remain in a senior position at Mozilla, but that he quit because he thought it would cause more harm to the company if he stayed. “He was the right person for all of the technical growth, but the other things steered into him hard,” Mr. Hoffman said. “He said, ‘My continuing is not good for me or the organization.’ ” Chief executives are held to a different standard, fair or not, Mr. Hoffman said. “We agreed with Brendan that as long as he stayed in the chair, things wouldn’t end,” he said. “We agreed with him that he had to go as C.E.O., but we spent hours trying to argue with him out of leaving Mozilla.” Ms. Baker is now the acting head of the company, and a search for a new chief executive is expected to begin next week.' So they supported[sic] Brendan to remain in a senior position at Mozilla, but not to remain as CEO. They 'agreed with him that he had to go as C.E.O.' rather than trying to talk him out of it. They are not saying that he is welcome back as CEO after taking some rest! Brendan has a lot of support, but it does not appear he got it where it was needed. If he started a new organization then I expect many would follow, even if he were CEO, and if he were the target of some activists. Jim -------------------------------------------- On Sat, 4/5/14, Jorge Villalobos <[email protected]> wrote: Subject: Re: Back to IE and Microsoft - Mozilla Intolerance To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, April 5, 2014, 4:37 PM On 4/5/14, 12:26 PM, »Q« wrote: > In <news:[email protected]>, > Jorge Villalobos <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 4/4/14, 11:01 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> The truly intolerant Board members had already resigned when Mr Eich was >>> appointed CEO. Are those intolerant Board members going to be reinstated >>> on to the Mozilla Board? >> >> The board members who resigned didn't do so because of Brendan's beliefs. >> They had already planned to leave the board and they just >> timed it so that they could do one of their key roles (elect a CEO) and >> then leave. This fact has been widely misrepresented by the press. > > Unless the New York Times is misquoting him, Lilly has tied his decision to > resign directly to Eich's elevation to the CEO position. > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/technology/personality-and-change-inflamed-crisis-at-mozilla.html> > > Mr. Lilly, now a venture capitalist with Greylock Partners, resigned from >the Mozilla board two weeks ago, ahead of Mr. Eich’s > appointment. “I left rather than appoint him,” he said, declining >toelaborate further. > > Note though that he did *not* tie it to Eich's support of Prop 8. > Yes, you're right about that. As far as we know none of them resigned due to his beliefs, and one did resign due to his selection, but for a different reason. I can't find the quote now, but I believe it had to do with him being more on the technical side rather than the people management side. Jorge _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
