There is some truth in what you say. There are a lot of inaccuracies in media reports.
However, people can also see through the PR. The Mozilla FAQ is very selective and leading. It fails to state if the board asked Brendan to stay on as CEO or as the janitor? It does make a difference! People see Mitchell's blog post stating that Brendan was not the right person, that Mozilla made a mistake. This is just not consistent with them asking him to stay on as the CEO. The FAQ fails to address if Brendan is welcome to return as CEO. Mitchell's blog post appears to slam the door, and you talk of moving on. People understand that Brendan would have been under a lot of personal pressure but also that a supportive organization would have given him time to reconsider. This did not happen which is telling. It is a fact that a board member resigned rather than appointing Brendan, but the reason was not given. The FAQ fails to note this which makes it misleading. The FAQ notes that Brendan is no longer even a contributor. You might want to check your own facts! People are just not that stupid to fall for the PR spin that Mozilla are putting on this and it just adds to our contempt for what has occurred and destroys trust. Jim -------------------------------------------- On Mon, 4/7/14, David Rajchenbach-Teller <[email protected]> wrote: Subject: Re: It's not so much about "diversity" but now about "trust" To: [email protected], [email protected] Date: Monday, April 7, 2014, 7:03 AM I am afraid that many things that you may have read about the situation are misrepresentations. So far, news coverage about the story has been very keen on accusations, but very light on fact-checking. You are right that the Board knew about the "issue" several years ago and should have planned for the campaign demanding Brendan's resignation. I believe that nobody on the board imagined that we would have a full blown boycott and petitions campaign largely organized as a marketing ploy by OKCupid, but this is not a sufficient excuse. However, to the best of my knowledge (and I have many reasons to believe it), Brendan truly resigned because he felt that the controversy was putting the Mozilla mission in danger, while the Board of Directors asked him to reconsider and stay. Note that, while Brendan is not an employee of Mozilla anymore, he is still a key participant of the Mozilla project. If you believe, as I seem to understand it, in the right to free speech, free opinion and privacy, I hope you will reconsider your position and come and help us, because right now, we need all the help we can get – if only to get the public to hear the true story, and not just the misrepresentations that are currently being repeated in the media. Best regards, David On 4/7/14 6:40 AM, [email protected] wrote: > On Sunday, April 6, 2014 4:31:41 PM UTC-7, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > > <a whole bunch of mostly pedantic silliness> > > This whole narrative about Brendan resigning, his choice, blah, blah flies in the face of everything I've read about the situation and know about corporate politics. And that's what this was. > > You actually missed one of my primary points. The Board and Mozilla apparently knew about this "issue" as long as two years ago when it was first brought to light by some Mozillians that disagreed with it and took it sort of public. > > The Board gave him the job anyway. All thought it was good since he was a well-qualified person for the position on every account. > > Fast forward two weeks. What changed about the man? Nothing. What changed within Mozilla? Nothing. What changed was that an outside group brought pressure and Mozilla stayed silent on the matter until it boiled over. Mozilla's Board failed Mr. Eich and Mozilla. So they made the decision. Yet, no Board members have tendered their resignations have they? > > There are many people out there who don't believe in God yet they are almost religious in their attempt to make me "believe" or think the same way. I can't tell you how many "God" cartoons people send me via email or push at me via social media. However, I would no more want to see an atheist forced out under similar circumstances than I would someone who holds Mr. Eich's views. (FTR, I <3 Penn Jillette.) Tolerance and free speech are swords that cut both directions. They have to apply to your tolerance of CEOs too. > >> Community Participation Guidlines covers this: >> >> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/participation/ > > Glad you brought this up. Please note item (c) below. Clearly many Mozillians violated their own guidelines since from all indications, Mr. Eich did neither a or b. > > ------ > > Some Mozillians may identify with activities or organizations that do not support the same inclusion and diversity standards as Mozilla. When this is the case: > > (a) support for exclusionary practices must not be carried into Mozilla activities. > (b) support for exclusionary practices in non-Mozilla activities should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces. > (c) when if (a) and (b) are met, other Mozillians should treat this as a private matter, not a Mozilla issue. > > ----- > > This discussion will probably not change anyone's minds since there are clearly some hard corps defenders of the Mozilla way that don't see the mustache they themselves have painted on the family portrait. > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > -- David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD Performance Team, Mozilla _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
