4 ms·

She created the foundation and has had a leading role in it since forever. She’s not someone who came in left field as an interim and started firing people lef

She created the foundation and has had a leading role in it since forever. She’s not someone who came in left field as an interim and started firing people left and right. I’m not sure why you think a ceo should also be a programmer.

mjw1007 7y ago
I think a programmer might well do a better job than a lawyer. Some years ago, Mozilla decided to relaunch their browser under the name "Firebird". That was a poor choice of name, because there was already a free-software database using it. There was a kerfuffle about it for some time before Mozilla switched to the (much better) name "Firefox". During that period, the Mozilla lawyer running the show (one Mitchell Baker) was insistent that there was no reason to change because their legal advice was that they weren't infringing on any trademarks. A programmer might have realised earlier that trademark law isn't the only relevant consideration in a situation like this (consider, for example, what `apt-get install firebird` is going to do).
- petercooper 7y ago
  You can go back a bit further too as Firefox was called Phoenix before being called Firebird and Phoenix Technologies was not happy: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=83507 http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=83507
hutzlibu 7y ago
Because Mozilla is (self declared) not just any company, but one with a very idealistic active community, involved in the development process of open internet technology? And in this area, I believe, a focus on technical expertise might be a better fit, than a focus on legal expertise. You surely need legal expertise as well, but maybe not primarily. Primarily mozilla needs a superior browser, to combat bad market share. And the engineers at firefox surely are doing a great job (mostly), but then I really do not understand the connection of laying of technical people, who build the actual product and using this money to compensate the CEO which does not have technical expertise, if the goal is, to get relevant again as a browser.

mjw1007 7y ago

I think a programmer might well do a better job than a lawyer. Some years ago, Mozilla decided to relaunch their browser under the name "Firebird". That was a poor choice of name, because there was already a free-software database using it. There was a kerfuffle about it for some time before Mozilla switched to the (much better) name "Firefox". During that period, the Mozilla lawyer running the show (one Mitchell Baker) was insistent that there was no reason to change because their legal advice was that they weren't infringing on any trademarks. A programmer might have realised earlier that trademark law isn't the only relevant consideration in a situation like this (consider, for example, what `apt-get install firebird` is going to do).

petercooper 7y ago
You can go back a bit further too as Firefox was called Phoenix before being called Firebird and Phoenix Technologies was not happy: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=83507 http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=83507

hutzlibu 7y ago

Because Mozilla is (self declared) not just any company, but one with a very idealistic active community, involved in the development process of open internet technology? And in this area, I believe, a focus on technical expertise might be a better fit, than a focus on legal expertise. You surely need legal expertise as well, but maybe not primarily. Primarily mozilla needs a superior browser, to combat bad market share. And the engineers at firefox surely are doing a great job (mostly), but then I really do not understand the connection of laying of technical people, who build the actual product and using this money to compensate the CEO which does not have technical expertise, if the goal is, to get relevant again as a browser.