4 ms·
I don't mean to rehash old arguments but in his position he was representing Mozilla. And Mozilla is an advocacy organisation with a deep interest in policy. Th
by ChrisSD 9y ago
I don't mean to rehash old arguments but in his position he was representing Mozilla. And Mozilla is an advocacy organisation with a deep interest in policy. They aren't just a browser maker; Firefox is merely their most widely known campaign.
If the organisation felt he didn't represent them then it doesn't make sense for him to be CEO. It would have been less of an issue if he were in a more purely technical role.
- robertlagrant 9y agoThat's my point - I don't want them to spend their money on being a general-purpose morality organisation. I want a browser maker who specifically argues for the most foundational and important of needs regarding the internet. I don't want a social justice crusader who values PR above all.
- BrendanEich 9y agoAh, the acceptable bigotry of "those [people in my outgroup] can be CTOs but not CEOs". Well done. In fact, my leaving had nothing to do with advocacy _per se_. As Erin Kissane wrote at the time, if Mozilla were to become a narrow "progressive" advocacy group, it would fail at its stated mission. Whether it has taken or will take that fall, I won't attempt to evaluate here. But that's the risk Erin cited, and I agree.