On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:10 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for responding. > > 1) Why didn't they offer him the CEO position? Has Mozilla attempted to > persuade Brendan to speak publicly on this? What was his response? >
Because he had just quit that position. "I don't want to be CEO anymore." "Ok, how about if you be CEO instead?" > > 2) Not blogging skills, but the content of the post was the straw that > broke the camel's back. Missteps prior to are justification. She should > have quelled this fire the second the "protest" began. And if it developed > further, reiterate the board, including her, stands by their appointment > and that doesn't require standing by his views outside Mozilla. A blog post > on her personal web site is next to nothing. The handling and response were > inadequate. But, she did take the time to write a lengthy blog post the day > he left. She was ready to take advantage of that. :-\ > Because the people asking for Brendan's resignation weren't entirely baseless. They did have a valid point that people that don't know Brendan could have hard time trusting him. Mitchell couldn't just say "no you guys are entirely wrong, we're not listening to you!!" Also "quelling" the fire would have required squashing other people's freedom of speech. This happened very quickly. Mistakes were made. No doubt the longer blog post was made after seeing how the previously handling of the situation worked (or didn't work). Mitchell and Brendan are cofounders of Mozilla. They have been friends for a long time. I can't for a moment believe Mitchell would ever intentionally gain from Brendan's suffering. I'm sure that's also part of why the blog post after he resigned was longer, because she must feel awful. > 3) By not standing by and defending someone who differs in opinion. By not > acting on information which should be private but forced to be public by > California law. > As an organization, and in general, Mozilla did stand by him. Only a small number of people called for his resignation. Many others, including several of our LGBTQ contributors supported Brendan continuing in the position. Personal opinion here: Brendan wasn't a slam dunk choice before the controversy hit. I am much more excited about Chris Beard being named interim CEO than I was over Brendan. I have nothing against Brendan, and I don't know him well enough to say if I think he'd have been a great CEO for Mozilla. I think many of us were in that in between place, we didn't realize he was a candidate, we knew there was a search for an outside CEO. We didn't have time to decide if we thought he was the right choice. I do know Chris well enough to know he'll be amazing. I know for my part, that contributed to me taking time before publicly (on facebook :-p ) declaring support for Brendan. I waited to see how our LGBTQ contributors felt. But things were moving fast, and we didn't really have much time. Honestly, I'm not 100% sure what we could have done better. We could have tried to organize social media so that we were sharing out our posts in support of Brendan better. But all this is hindsight. If we'd been prepared for this, sure, we could have done a bunch of things differently. But we weren't prepared. We didn't expect the controversy because to most of us there wasn't a controversy (we dealt with this 2 years ago). It's much faster to just RT a call for a resignation than it is to take time to carefully form an opinion. > > On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:33:34 AM UTC-5, David Rajchenbach-Teller > wrote: > > Thanks for the suggestions. Let me answer them piecewise. > > > > > > > > 1) As you know, Brendan resigned and declined the offers to remain at > > > > Mozilla in another leadership position, so there isn't much we can do > > > > about that. However, yes, it would be good if Brendan wrote a blog post > > > > with a full explanation. > > > > > > > > 2) We have lost one co-founder who was critical to the project. We are > > > > not going to lose another one, especially if the only criticism is on > > > > her blogging skills. > > > > > > > > 3) I'm not sure where that comes from. As you see it, how exactly have > > > > we not adopted openness? > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > David > > > > > > > > On 14/04/14 20:23, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > But, many have heard these arguments before. How can Mozilla get out > of this? > > > > > 1) Hire Brendan back. If that's not possible, convince Brendan to give > a full explanation of why he left and the events as he saw it leading to > his decision. Bonus if he state honestly (without pressure) his thoughts > and feelings on Mozilla and its projects. > > > > > 2) Fire Mitchell Baker. Her blog post the day Brendan left was > obviously an attempt to get good PR. It now looks foolish and stands in > contrast to what the FAQ says. > > > > > 3) Adopt openness. Not merely in words, but in action. Allowing > someone to be pressured into leaving for participating legally and > privately in the democratic process on an issue that's already been won by > the opposition in the courts is revenge, plain and simple. It's no way to > influence people and win friends. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > governance mailing list > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD > > > > Performance Team, Mozilla > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
