Yes, this is my concern. I think the blog post is so poorly written and damaging that it should just be taken down.
I have seen a lot of other mis-interpretations, but have not been keeping track. The ambiguity is also being taken advantage of. It will be hard to 'explain what Mitchell meant' while this blog post is up because people would find it hard to believe that Mozilla would keep this blog post up given the claimed misinterpretation. It's been up for almost a full week now. I find this hard to believe! Jim -------------------------------------------- On Wed, 4/9/14, David Rajchenbach-Teller <[email protected]> wrote: Subject: Re: Goodbye Firefox and Mozilla! To: "Jim Taylor" <[email protected]>, "Michael Connor" <[email protected]> Cc: "Nicholas Nethercote" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2014, 1:36 AM To second Jim (partly): it is true that Mitchell's blog post could have been written better and quite easy to interpret as « We have fired Brendan and we should have done it sooner. » This is not misinformation or lies, just two very different ways to read the same text. One of the commenters pointed me to http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375250/mozillas-statement-brendan-eich-controversy-explained-hans-von-spakovsky as an explanation of what he understood from the post. I know that this is not what Mitchell meant. However, readers of this blog who interpret as above would be absolutely right to be shocked. Telling them that they are misinformed (and I'm guilty of this) will only quite understandably consider that we are lying. I believe that one of the best things we can do on governance right now is explain what Mitchell meant – and ask Mitchell to publish some less ambiguous text. Jim, is what I wrote above in line with your concerns? Best regards, David On 4/9/14 3:25 AM, Jim Taylor 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? > > Mitchell's blog post is widely quoted in the media. It is no longer possible to dismiss people's interpretation of the blog post as 'misinformation and/or outright lies' because we know how lots of people interpret it. It's damaging. Why has it not been taken down? > > Telling people they are misreading it when no attempt has been made to clarify it just communicates contempt. > > 'We’re committed to free speech.' Who made you the authority on what the Mozilla community stands for and how it's interpreted? > > 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. > > Jim -- David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD Performance Team, Mozilla _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
