Unfortunately Mozilla seemed to go from "awesome" to really disappointing in a very short time window.
If you're going to be that biased, at least back it up. And by back it up, I mean at LEAST throwing in some statements of fact, if not URLs.
[1] - https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-cuts-70-staff-as-part-of-p...
Yes, Baker is CEO of the for profit corporation.
Which technology intensive company hire a CEO who is lawyer by profession and hasn't had any redeeming resume for management and technology.
Are you aware that she cofounded the project in the 90s? Mozilla (corporation) didn't just decide to hire a lawyer out of the blue in 2018.
No, a non-profit does not need to attract someone who only cares about making money.
Hiring someone willing to work for less would ultimately be better for a non-profit, since it's an indicator that they care about the mission, and not purely about the money.
If you hire someone who wants over 2M, you hire someone who cares about your money, not your ideals, and will push the organisation in that direction.
The way to kill Mozilla is from the inside: to quash its soul.
Yes, another chrome skin perhaps?
In the open market, any organization that doesn't cares more about its survival than its mission will eventually be replaced by one that does. This is fundamental to the definition of "survival".
> If Mozilla falls, another will take its place.
The one that will take its place will be an organization that prioritizes survival, not its mission.
The only real downside is that they wouldn't have a seat on the WHATWG.
Sure, I’ll buy that.
> push policy objectives against free speech
Can people please stop this latent homophobia? Mozilla fired a person who donated money to a deplorable cause. You can try to hide behind free speech, but we all know what this is about.
He quit. And I don’t agree with it, but I wouldn’t exactly call his cause deplorable. People with those views can believe they’re being completely ethical. That was also in 2008, a different political climate, and nobody allowed him to learn from it or to restitute.
Of course, I agree that wasn’t their downfall—it was simply misdirected goals and funding.
The purpose of Proposition 8 was to remove the right to marry from gay couples - yes remove - because the courts had already granted them that right.
If I was a gay Mozilla employee and I learned that my CEO wanted to remove rights which the legal system had already granted me, I would be so incredibly demoralized and pissed.
Regardless of personal beliefs, it's a bad thing for a leader of a tech company to be doing if they want to retain talent.
I agree that Brendan's Prop 8 donation was bad. But he did it privately, and never (AFAIK) made anti-LGBT comments in public. People who had worked with him for many years were surprised to find he had these views. It was only found out because of political donation public disclosure laws.
Some Mozilla employees publicly criticized Brendan for the Prop 8 donation, but some defended him, because of the aforementioned privateness of it. A number of the defenses came from LGBT employees.
The pile-on at the time was intense. It lasted more than a week. It reached the front page of my local paper. Crazy stuff.
Brendan chose to stand down as CEO and also quit Mozilla. He wasn't fired, and Mozilla leadership asked him to stay.
All this nuance was lost. Lots of left-leaning people concluded that Mozilla had knowingly promoted a proudly anti-LGBT guy to CEO. Lots of right-leaning people concluded that Mozilla had fired their CEO for his political views. Both conclusions were greatly over-simplified. Almost everyone found a reason to hate Mozilla. Bad times!