On 11/04/14 16:23, Jim Taylor wrote: > The response is not going to help because it does not address the > main concern that people have. That Brendan, or someone who's > beliefs are exposed making them a target of activists inside and > outside the Mozilla community, is not suitable as CEO of Mozilla. > The Board has already gone on the record as agreeing that Brendan had > to go because he was targeted. Mitchell even sank the boot in > claiming Brendan was not 'head of state' material.
In case it makes a difference, that quote was misattributed. Reid Hoffman said that, not Mitchell. (She was somewhat upset that it was misattributed.) > If not then the FAQ needs to answer the question: Q. Why is Brendan > not welcome to return as CEO? > > The answer looks damming. People see this. If the Board no longer > supported Brendan as CEO then he *was* pressured by Mozilla to > resign. That doesn't follow. Also, "welcome to return" != "wants to return". Remember, he resigned; he wasn't fired. > The FAQ also fails to address the conflict between people being free > to speak (and ask the CEO to resign) versus people being requested to > leave their non-mission related issues (wanting to exclude Brendan > because they do not agree with him on the definition on marriage) at > the door. The failure to enforce the participation guidelines sounds > like a defense of those targeting Brendan. We can't enforce those on people outside, of course. And it is indeed an open question as to how the people from inside who tweeted viewed the guidelines, if they were even aware of them. Gerv _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
