Sheeri Cabral wrote:
Correct; Mozilla is delightfully different in this. It's exactly why Chris McAvoy specifically said https://twitter.com/chmcavoy/status/449231987895570433 "It's important to note that I'm fortunate to work at a place like @mozilla where I can say that without fear of retribution."
Right, but he issued his Mr.Eich-please-resign request on Twitter. Is making something public like that on a non-Mozilla-based channel also covered under that "without fear of retribution"? And is this without fear of retribution from within the organization? Does it apply to outside? What about repercussions? Retribution: punishment for doing something wrong (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retribution) Repercussions: something usually bad or unpleasant that happens as a result of an action, statement, etc., and that usually affects people for a long time (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repercussion) As I understand this and please do correct me if I'm wrong, retribution is directed to the individual whereas repercussion is directed to the individual and everyone else that's affected by the decision/action. At this point, there's no retribution(afaik); but there are repercussions. He's still affected by the action. Now, everyone involved is affected. How exactly is this a 'delightfully different' thing? Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Mozilla's 'say without fear of retribution' policy is wrong. It's Mozilla's perogative to create an environment which people can say what they feel when something bothers them. I'm guessing some companies have ombudspeople/arbitrators to do this, whereas others have different internal avenues/places that employees can vent/complain/voice their opinions. It's an internal thing. But Mozilla has absolutely no control over the Twitter environment. Mozilla doesn't even own the Twitter environment. Clearly, 'say without fear of retribution' should not be used as a reason to say what they feel in a public channel that's not part of the Mozilla internal environment. In this environment, they aren't protected from retribution. They aren't protected from repercussions. No one is. Say I have a sound proof room in my house. I go in there and scream expletives. Will I get retribution? No. Repercussions? No, aside for very soar voice. However, if I go out into the public, say a library, and do that, what exactly do you think will happen? Will I get retribution? Will there be repercussions? Both yes.
Also, I see you've pointed out that all the employees you listed are employees of the Mozilla Foundation. The Mozilla Foundation is above Mozilla Corporation. Brendan was the CEO of Mozilla Corporation and wasn't the boss of any of the people you linked to.
The public only knows Mozilla, the name. Even in the above what Mr. Chris McAvoy said "It's important to note that I'm fortunate to work at a place like @mozilla..." He works for Mozilla Foundation, am I right? So is he referring @mozilla as Mozilla Foundation (which is where he works for) or Mozilla Corporation (which is where Brendan worked for). Or is Mozilla the 'blanket' name for the combined organization? I believe people read "Mozilla employee" and immediately think Mozilla Corporation(which is what the CEO was the leader of). To be honest, that's what I did as well. My mistake. Forgot about Mozilla Foundation; but I do understand the distinction between Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Co. Edmund _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
