> I'm just disappointed about what Mozilla has become over the years.
I think that train started rolling when they forced Eich out as CEO.
Ever since then, Mozilla seems to be less about best-in-class technology, and more about virtue signalling.
I think that train started rolling when they forced Eich out as CEO.
Ever since then, Mozilla seems to be less about best-in-class technology, and more about virtue signalling.
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...
Q: Was Brendan Eich fired?
A: No, Brendan Eich resigned. Brendan himself said:
“I have decided to resign as CEO effective April 3rd, and leave Mozilla. Our mission is bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader. I will be taking time before I decide what to do next.”
Brendan Eich also blogged on this topic.
Q: Was Brendan Eich asked to resign by the Board?
A: No. It was Brendan’s idea to resign, and in fact, once he submitted his resignation, Board members tried to get Brendan to stay at Mozilla in another C-level role.
Funny how so few people know about this law.
That's why they had to come to a settlement to pay him so that he would agree to leave and not pursue his rights under the law.
Exactly how much did they pay him, and why, since they certainly didn't fire him, and just how do you know that? Where is your evidence, or your retraction and apology for lying and spreading misinformation?
I can’t comment on anything about my exit. This will be my only comment, confined to general facts and CA law.
P.S.: CA 1101 labor law is real.
Mozilla doesn't have any more business interest devoting resources to LGBT causes than Chick-Fil-A has a business interest in funding anti-LGBT causes.
The difference is Chick-Fil-A makes money hand over fist and can afford to take its eye off the prize a little. Mozilla doesn't have that same luxury.
You could certainly disagree with the interests of the Mozilla Foundation's board, and could choose to support another organization, like Brave Software, that has different ones, but are you suggesting that a board should not be able to determine the interests, within legal limits, for a non-profit, or that the sole shareholder of a corporation should not be able to control its interests and mission?
Right. They can choose to do whatever they want, it's their call.
My point is Mozilla has pretty clearly been in some tough straits for a while now trying to remain relevant. Now they are having to lay people off.
In my opinion, they have bigger issues to worry about as a corporation than social values, etc.
But also I'm just a random nobody on the internet, so what's it really matter?
So Eich's case is, despite superficial resemblance, markedly different. Mozilla built a brand around openness and the idea of "putting people first" and making them feel "empowered, safe and independent." (Those quotes are from at least one version of their mission statement.) Eich's backing of the anti-gay-marriage initiative was a PR problem for them in a way that it might not have been for many other companies. Also, he violated the first rule of holes (i.e., when you're in one, stop digging); it's possible they might have been able to do effective damage control without booting him if his initial response hadn't been, in so many words, "it's my money and I can do what I want with it."
And, sure: it is, and he can. The CEO of a nonprofit Catholic hospital chain could also use their money to donate to Planned Parenthood. But, if they did, we can be reasonably sure the hospital's boards of directors would have words with them about it.
That's exactly what politics in the US is. It literally just boils down to that in terms of practical effect.
The last time they were in power they started multiple wars that has cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.
I don't think we live in the same universe.