Gijs, No one supports Mitchell's blog post as being unambiguous or constructive. Do you?
If this post were taken down then we can point this out to people and it sends a clear message that we understand it is being mis-understood. Leaving it up sends the message that Mozilla support it as it is being interpreted. Your personal lack of clarity is not a reason to not act. On the FAQ. 'Q: Was Brendan asked to resign by the Board? A: No. In fact, Board members tried to get Brendan to stay at Mozilla in another role. Brendan decided that it was better for himself and for Mozilla to sever all ties, at least for now.' There is a suggestion here that the board supported Brendan 'tried to get Brendan to stay at Mozilla in another role' but it fails to mention if the Board supported Brendan to stay on as the CEO. This is an important point for people wanting to understand what happened. People want to know if Brendan was pressured by a lack of support. Brendan appears to have recently clarified that the Board did not ask him to stay on as CEO. The blog post needs to be taken down. The FAQ is not so damaging but it looks like a half-truth to me. Jim -------------------------------------------- On Wed, 4/9/14, Gijs Kruitbosch <[email protected]> wrote: Subject: Re: Take down Mitchell's blog post and the FAQ. To: "Jim Taylor" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2014, 4:18 PM 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
