On Apr 8, 2014, at 9:25 PM, Jim Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Check the feedback. People are boycotting Firefox due to the message > communicated by Mitchell in her blog post. > > Dismissing people's feedback, stating they will not be using Firefox, as not > being a boycott is not constructive. They will just raise the volume. Is > that what you want? To stick to the reportedly misinterpreted message and > dam the consequences? First, my statement was that I do not believe there is a major boycott. Emphasis is on major, which is of course a subjective assessment. It’d be absurd to argue there aren’t some set of people boycotting Mozilla based on how they view the situation. In terms of the blog post’s wording, Nick already noted that some of the wording there is unclear and there are people working on clarifications. > Telling people they are misreading it when no attempt has been made to > clarify it just communicates contempt. Good thing that’s not what I said! What I did say is that the majority of the negative coverage I’ve seen is driven by false stories (i.e. the WSJ article about the board resignations). Many of the stories I’ve seen have stated Brendan was fired, that half the board resigned over his Prop 8 stance, and/or that the donation came to light two weeks ago, when it’s been well known to Mozilla for years. I’m sure there are some stories quoting Mitchell’s post, but in all of the coverage I’ve seen it hasn’t been the primary subject, if it’s mentioned at all. > 'We’re committed to free speech.' Who made you the authority on what the > Mozilla community stands for and how it's interpreted? I’m paraphrasing Mitchell there: "Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.” I’m not saying I’m the authority, I’m saying that’s my understanding of why there hasn’t been retaliation against those individuals. > I expected people to leave their exclusion issues at the door. Those who > can't are not welcome. If you do not accept this then there is no point in > have participation rules. If there are rules to help us all get along then > we are entitled to enforce them and exclude people who cross the line. Once again, if you have examples of people advocating for exclusionary or discriminatory practices in violation of the CPG, please give specifics. It’s hard to address things without knowing who said or did something that’s crossed the line. — Mike _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
