On 09/04/2014 23:55, Jim Taylor wrote:
Mitchell's 'Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO' is ambiguous. Some people defending the treatment of Brendan and Mozilla claim it is being mis-interpreted by many in the media. This post has been up for a week now. It appears that clarifications have not made it out today. The ambiguity is damaging. The failure to take it down or clarify it hampers attempts to make a case to enraged users that they have mis-interpreted it. Why has this damaging post not been taken down?
Because even if everyone agreed with you that it's a bad post (which I'm not sure is the case) it's not clear that not having the post (or worse, taking down the post after having published it) is any better than having it as far as helping people understand the issue, or countering wrong/misleading media narratives.
The FAQ reads as a half-truth so take it down too until a better replacement is produced.
This suggestion suffers from the same problem. I think an official document stating "Brendan resigned and wasn't fired" has value whatever other faults it may have.
Additionally, if it reads as "a half-truth" (to you, I might add), why is that and what could be done to make it better? More concretely, saying it's a "half-truth" implies to me that you believe either:
1) some portion of it is false, that is, (part of) the statement is a lie. In which case, how would a further statement by the same people ("No really, this is actually true") help fix that? (but also: why do you think that, and what parts do you think are not true, and how *do* you think we could fix that?)
2) some portion of the truth is omitted. In which case: what portion of the truth do you believe Mozilla is withholding or neglected to provide? What question is missing from the FAQ?
~ Gijs _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
