Taking down the existing posts wouldn't be productive, in my opinion -- it'd likely just lead to suggestions that Mozilla's trying to bury history or stuff like that.
An expanded FAQ document and another post from Mitchell are both being actively worked on. Several people, including me, have been in communication with those drafting the new posts, to let them know what the main sources of skepticism and criticism are. I'm (fervently) hoping the new posts will be more illuminating than the existing posts. Nick On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Jim Taylor <[email protected]> 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? > > The FAQ reads as a half-truth so take it down too until a better replacement > is produced. > > Jim > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
