On Apr 12, 2014, at 8:21 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Brendan also claims that the Board first raised the idea of him stepping down > on the 26 March.
I’d have been surprised if no one on the board raised the possibility at that point. In a crisis, it’s important to put all of the options on the table and understand the tradeoffs. As unpalatable as the idea would have seemed to many at the time, in hindsight it may have been better for both Brendan and Mozilla to prevent the situation from escalating as it did. > Would it be fair to say that the Board changed their assessment of Brendan > being suitable for the CEO position based on a campaign against his personal > beliefs on marriage and political donations? Can you see that some people do > not consider this to be fair and that Mozilla have not been transparent and > that people are skeptical that the Board will not make this same judgement in > future hiring decisions. I think it’d be fair to say that the board accepted Brendan couldn’t be effective under the circumstances. I don’t think anyone competent to sit on a board would argue that an individual who attracts major boycotts and ongoing negative press would be a effective choice as CEO, regardless of their personal beliefs or abilities. Is that fair? Not really, but I don’t think that unfairness rests upon the board. — Mike _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
