3 ms·
It's clear from Dries' post that he was kicked out purely for his views. It's equivalent to when Mozilla kicked out their founder for supporting an anti-gay mar
by peterwwillis 10y ago
It's clear from Dries' post that he was kicked out purely for his views. It's equivalent to when Mozilla kicked out their founder for supporting an anti-gay marriage campaign. You can't defend yourself out of it, they simply don't like who he is.
- angry_octet 10y agoMaybe the Mozilla board was completely happy with his choice until it became public, and meant that his role would compromise fundraising and other interaction expected of a CEO. For this guy that reason doesn't apply, and he doesn't have any supervisory responsibility. I can't see why on the facts available that this would have happened, and I can't be help think there is something more.
- peterwwillis 10y agoAre there any facts available? Maybe I missed them. So far all I've read is a post saying this guy's values conflict with Drupal's.
- angry_octet 10y agoBy definition the decision is made in the facts available to the decision maker and those with statutory responsibilities. This does not include you or HN. The court of public opinion has no method of adjudicating facts anyway.
- thehardsphere 10y agoReally? "We won't explain for liability and confidentially reasons" is corporatespeak code for "we think something awful may have happened and we don't want to get it on us." I mean, with Eich we knew the exact details of why he was shoved-out/quit. We know the exact reason, there is no mystery. With Garfield, we have one side saying that Garfield is a victim, and another side saying "Well, yeah, but we know something you don't, and we're not talking about it."
- klibertp 10y ago> "Well, yeah, but we know something you don't, and we're not talking about it." Which, in itself, is enough to make me highly suspicious about what they say. Or don't say.