Comment by tpmx | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tpmx | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Mitchell is well-known in the community for writing this In Memoriam for her past co-worker, Gervase Markham after he passed away:

https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2018/08/07/in-memoriam-gerva...

> Gerv’s default approach was to see things in binary terms — yes or no, black or white, on or off, one or zero. Over the years I worked with him to moderate this trait so that he could better appreciate nuance and the many “gray” areas on complex topics. Gerv challenged me, infuriated me, impressed me, enraged me, surprised me. He developed a greater ability to work with ambiguity, which impressed me.

> Gerv’s faith did not have ambiguity at least none that I ever saw. Gerv was crisp. He had very precise views about marriage, sex, gender and related topics. He was adamant that his interpretation was correct, and that his interpretation should be encoded into law. These views made their way into the Mozilla environment. They have been traumatic and damaging, both to individuals and to Mozilla overall.

I'm an atheist, and "liberal" in case that matters. I was just really shocked by that whole thing - a manager of a large organization writing something like that publicly about a long-time worker who just passed away after a long battle with cancer. In my mind that post disqualifies her from managing people, period. This will be read by his immediate family eventually.

Edit:

Found the previous discussion on this topic, 83 days ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22059686

Selected quotes from that thread:

> She also wrote this incredibly rude and grotesque obituary for Gervase Markham after he died of cancer (working for Mozilla until the end).

> She used the sandwich feedback technique for a eulogy - an interesting approach

> That's appalling. How did that make people still working at Mozilla feel? I can't imagine working under somebody like that.

Without commenting on Mitchell's fitness as CEO, I think there are a few important points here that don't resonate unless you were at Mozilla.

The first is that Mitchell and Gerv probably were familiar enough with each other for her to speak to this. Gerv was very prominent inside the project, and Mitchell really did know everyone in the organization (at least in the triple digit or less days).

The second is that Gerv quite openly led with his religion, and this was incredibly controversial. It caused a lot of churn when Mozilla was working out community guidelines and that discussion was anything but private. I'm sure that led her to think that speaking to that publicly was essential.

The third is that Gerv was more or less impervious to criticism about his religion or his attitude of being open with it in all arenas, and probably wouldn't have blinked at any of her take. There was a lot of open conversation internally (and IIRC externally) about it. I suspect this led her to think that speaking as frankly as she might have to him or with the org internally was appropriate.

In total, I think she was wrong on a number of counts, the biggest being that the time after someone's death is about everyone else's reconciliation and they weren't coming from the same perspective Gerv would have. The optics were awful, and a combo of natural perception of position and her detached writing style makes it sound like a CEO crapping on the line from on high. The Mozilla "relationship" structure was much flatter than that, though, and with Gerv's community prominence and impact they were closer to peers than one might imagine.

Honestly, this shouldn't be the incident that colors her legacy. It was a pretty ill-advised blog post, but I don't think it's as malicious or even harmful as people make out, knowing the names involved. It's really hard to get across exactly how unshakably comfortable Gerv seemed to be with his faith and exactly how much that colored his relationship with the org.

I can't imagine how she could have acknowledged his impact without at least touching on some of that--even if I do think saying nothing at all would've been the winning move.

That's the explanation - which is different from a justification.

I also note that that there are no edits/retractions/clarifications or similar on that post, about 1.5 years later.

So I stand by my statement of this disqualifying her from managing other people.

Thanks for the balanced context. That provides a new perspective into the note and makes a lot of sense.

I thought it was a good obit:

> To memorialize Gerv’s passing, it is fitting that we remember all of Gerv — the full person, good and bad, the damage and trauma he caused, as well as his many positive contributions. Any other view is sentimental. We should be clear-eyed, acknowledge the problems, and appreciate the positive contributions.

Yes, let's remember the good. And let us be polite. But we should not sanctify the dead, by pretending they never caused others hurt if they did.

Again, I thought the obit got this balance just right.

It definitely runs up against social taboos to speak so frankly of the departed, but I find it refreshing personally. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but were I to die tomorrow I would actually prefer that the whole of my life is remembered:

- Accomplishments recognized, good and bad.

- Loved ones given space to grieve.

- And anyone I may have hurt allowed their feelings of relief.

Our legacy is what we leave behind, not just net change, or the parts we wish it to be.

It's just poor taste to talk smack about a dead guy. Her "eulogy" came off as a kind of personal grievance even, which just made it worse... she should really know better being in a supervisory/executive level.

I didn’t read it as smack talk. Though I agree most will probably see it that way, so it is poor taste by definition.

I never knew the man, but personally I feel like I have a greater appreciation for who he was than if the In Memoriam had only mentioned positive contributions. It makes him feel more real and human to me.

It‘s certainly bad form for someone in leadership, but in the same way that I appreciate leaders who break from PR spin to acknowledge and explain the nuance, I also appreciate a more balanced remembrance.

I've always hated how as soon as someone dies, people pretend that they never did anything wrong. And if anyone dares to bring up the bad things they did then that person usually gets strongly criticized and told to be more compassionate or whatever. I definitely think people should be polite about their grievances ofc, but ignoring the bad stuff a person did throughout their life is more damaging than acknowledging it.

Westworld actress Evan Rachel Wood, herself a survivor of rape and sexual abuse, got a lot of shit recently for her tweet about the late Koby Bryant for example.

"What has happened is tragic. I am heartbroken for Kobe’s family. He was a sports hero. He was also a rapist. And all of these truths can exist simultaneously"

Context about the case for those unfamiliar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_cas...

So far my experience of her as a CEO is that she is very frank and direct. She's not as reassuring as Chris Beard was (the previous CEO), but personally I prefer the direct, sometimes openly unassured communication that I think more honestly expresses what she thinks and where Mozilla is at.

When she started as interim CEO she herself noted that she has been warned that her directness has been interpreted as negative in ways that she has not intended, and asked us to take account of that. I have, and I feel okay about that. I prefer it to the bland opaqueness that is the norm for executive communication.

It is very easy to read that obituary in her voice. I had not read it before, but it doesn't surprise me. I'm sure I wouldn't write an obituary the same way, but if I was going to be memorialized with either something bland and impersonal (sadly the norm), or something like this, I would prefer the latter.

You are a good and loyal employee.

I hope readers follow that link and read the full text.

> To memorialize Gerv’s passing, it is fitting that we remember all of Gerv — the full person, good and bad, the damage and trauma he caused, as well as his many positive contributions. Any other view is sentimental. We should be clear-eyed, acknowledge the problems, and appreciate the positive contributions. Gerv came to Mozilla long before we were successful or had much to offer besides our goals and our open source foundations. As Gerv put it, he’s gone home now, leaving untold memories around the FLOSS world.

I read the full content in the link posted and the still agree with the original comment poster(not sure why they are being downvoted) . At best, the post seems like poor judgment in choice of what to say for that occasion.

>> Gerv had many roles over the years, from volunteer to mostly-volunteer to part-time, to full-time, and back again.

Mozilla certainly had plenty of opportunity to cut the cord.

from the link:

> Eventually Gerv felt called to live his faith by publicly judging others in politely stated but damning terms.

... in essence, kind of what the post is doing ...

Definitely worth reading the entire thing instead of cherry-picking quotes from it (which I'm cheerfully about to do):

> To memorialize Gerv’s passing, it is fitting that we remember all of Gerv — the full person, good and bad, the damage and trauma he caused, as well as his many positive contributions. Any other view is sentimental. We should be clear-eyed, acknowledge the problems, and appreciate the positive contributions

There's a time and place for things to be said. In this case: Before he died, and to him only.

How magnanimous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com