On Monday, April 7, 2014 10:03:45 AM UTC-5, Josh Matthews wrote: > If you're referring to the words in the post "Brendan Eich Steps Down as > > Mozilla CEO" > > (https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-ceo/), > > > I feel like you might be reading them more damningly than they were > > originally intended. The first two paragraphs come across ambiguously > > with regards to their subject, and paint an unintentional relationship > > to the following paragraph which announces Brendan's resignation. You > > should know that the post is apologizing for our response to the > > controversy, and the way the organization stayed silent for the first > > few days and chose not to engage.
Respectfully, if this is indeed the case, I recommend clarifying it with a new blog post. I can understand being reluctant to, considering it could be seen as not moving on. However it is, as you noted, quite ambiguous. It may easily be interpreted to mean that Baker or Mozilla regrets having appointed Eich CEO in the first place because of his political views--and such an interpretation amounts to apologizing to those who led the crusade against him. If this is not what Baker or Mozilla meant, I think it's extremely important to clarify this. Now who knows, doing so might anger the first mob again--it seems like Mozilla's caught yet again between a rock and a hard place. But I would argue that Mozilla should err on the side of clarity and truth, rather than appearing to be afraid to take a stand one way or the other. That's part of what hurt Mozilla in the first place. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
