6 ms·

All the problems Mozilla has are summed up in this one sentence (taken from the Mozilla blog post): > Enter Laura Chambers, a dynamic board member who will ste

All the problems Mozilla has are summed up in this one sentence (taken from the Mozilla blog post): > Enter Laura Chambers, a dynamic board member who will step into the CEO role for the remainder of this year. "Laura Chambers" is a link to her LinkedIn profile. Nothing you can do but shake your head if it didn't occur to anyone that putting that link in the post announcing her appointment was a bad idea.

altairprime 3y ago
> putting that link in the post announcing her appointment was a bad idea In what way? (Footnote: OP’s reply is in another thread.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39303697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39303697
blowski 3y ago
Bad idea because it's LinkedIn, which has a shady reputation? Or that her profile doesn't look good? Or something else?
- bachmeier 3y ago
  See my answer here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39303697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39303697
- fsflover 3y ago
  LinkedIn doesn't have shady reputation. It is shady.
hosteur 3y ago
I am probably just slow but why is that a bad idea?
- ploum 3y ago
  Let say for a moment that it is acceptable for the CEO of a corporation working on the independence of the Web to not have her personal independent webpage. I know, absurd, but let’s assume. Let say for a moment that it is acceptable that the personal independent webpage is replaced by a monopolistic platform trying to centralize the web. I know, absurd, but let’s assume Let say for a moment that we don’t care that the platform is owned by one of the biggest competitor of the corporation. Historically and currently. I know, absurd, but let’s assume. Let say for a moment that it is not a problem that the platform is one of the worst offender when regarding privacy of its users and handling personal data, even if the new CEO is talking about privacy. I know, absurd, but let’s assume. Let say that to there’s no problem in requiring every person clicking this link to have an account on the linked platform to know who the privacy-oriented new CEO is. I know, absurd, but let’s assume. Let say that nobody at Mozilla considered it to be a problem as the introductory post of the new CEO…
  - halvo 3y ago
    It is literally difficult for me to understand the problem through your condescension
    - ploum 3y ago
      I’m sorry I’m sounding condescending. I was trying to be funny. The point is that there are so many problems that it is even a problem to list them. Those problems are so evident to me that I didn’t thought people might not understand it. 1. Linkedin is a platform promoting a closed-garden vision of the web while Firefox is seen a the last stand against that closed vision. 2. Linkedin is owned by Microsoft. Microsoft has been the biggest opponent to Mozilla and still is, even if it may be topped by Google in that place. 3. Linkedin is known for its terrible security practices regarding personal datas. It is also a big seller of private data. Which goes against "promoting privacy". This tells a lot from a symbolic perspective. But it is not only symbolic: 4. You need a Linkedin account to view the link. Meaning that the very first step of the news CEO is requiring users to have an account on a rival platform which harvest their data if they want to know who she is. 5. It means that the new CEO find her Linkedin account more important that any personal website, if any, which is philosophically the opposite of Mozilla self-proclaimed mission. I hope it is is clearer and you understand that, yes, it is a big deal. CEO position is mostly symbolic. The very first move and the fact that nobody at Mozilla even realized that it could send a bad signal is enough indication that nobody there even understand the original mission anymore. Nobody there cares about privacy. Nobody there cares about the independence of the Web.
      - 2cynykyl 3y ago
        > I was trying to be funny. You succeeded!
    - TheRoque 3y ago
      What he means is that as a CEO of a corporation that is supposed to defend things like openness, privacy, power to the users etc., it's ironic that the only tool to see her profile is from a Microsoft-owned company, which is quite the opposite of most of Mozilla's core values (well, mostly regarding privacy).
- bachmeier 3y ago
  Because you have to create an account, be logged in, and agree to be tracked. In other words, the opposite of the mission of Mozilla. They've long had a reputation as one of the worst offenders, and they're owned by Microsoft, which is obviously not known for respecting user privacy.
ploum 3y ago
That. Exactly. Nothing to add. Anybody without a personal ten years old website using some hand-made HTML should probably not be CEO of Firefox.
- xethos 3y ago
  Being in love with the tech doesn't make someone a good CEO. Notably, sometimes standing too close to a problem prevents one from seeing solutions. Let's maybe start with actual admonisions against her (and her replacement's) relevant qualifications, achievements, or character (or lack thereof), instead of grabbing pitchforks and venting about how she's the wrong person to get a greenfield browser off the ground; simply put, that's not where Firefox or Mozilla is at right now.
  - ploum 3y ago
    "Being in love with the tech doesn't make someone a good CEO." I never said that this was a sufficient condition. I said it was a necessary condition. We have spent decades trusting tech-illiterate CEO’s because "they knew the business and knowing the tech was useless". See the result for yourself in every single company.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    It has nothing to do with tech. It's about a “pivot to data privacy” linking to one of the worse offender is terms of privacy invasion, that's just insane. It's as if say announced pivot to cloud computing and did so on a website hosted on AWS.
- dylan604 3y ago
  I have more respect for people that use hand-made HTML over some JS library that makes unreadable code
- Gualdrapo 3y ago
  The HN hivemind sometimes likes vintage web development and web design so much it becomes really weird.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

altairprime 3y ago

> putting that link in the post announcing her appointment was a bad idea In what way? (Footnote: OP’s reply is in another thread.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39303697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39303697

blowski 3y ago

Bad idea because it's LinkedIn, which has a shady reputation? Or that her profile doesn't look good? Or something else?

bachmeier 3y ago
See my answer here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39303697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39303697
fsflover 3y ago
LinkedIn doesn't have shady reputation. It is shady.

hosteur 3y ago

I am probably just slow but why is that a bad idea?

ploum 3y ago
Let say for a moment that it is acceptable for the CEO of a corporation working on the independence of the Web to not have her personal independent webpage. I know, absurd, but let’s assume. Let say for a moment that it is acceptable that the personal independent webpage is replaced by a monopolistic platform trying to centralize the web. I know, absurd, but let’s assume Let say for a moment that we don’t care that the platform is owned by one of the biggest competitor of the corporation. Historically and currently. I know, absurd, but let’s assume. Let say for a moment that it is not a problem that the platform is one of the worst offender when regarding privacy of its users and handling personal data, even if the new CEO is talking about privacy. I know, absurd, but let’s assume. Let say that to there’s no problem in requiring every person clicking this link to have an account on the linked platform to know who the privacy-oriented new CEO is. I know, absurd, but let’s assume. Let say that nobody at Mozilla considered it to be a problem as the introductory post of the new CEO…
- halvo 3y ago
  It is literally difficult for me to understand the problem through your condescension
  - ploum 3y ago
    I’m sorry I’m sounding condescending. I was trying to be funny. The point is that there are so many problems that it is even a problem to list them. Those problems are so evident to me that I didn’t thought people might not understand it. 1. Linkedin is a platform promoting a closed-garden vision of the web while Firefox is seen a the last stand against that closed vision. 2. Linkedin is owned by Microsoft. Microsoft has been the biggest opponent to Mozilla and still is, even if it may be topped by Google in that place. 3. Linkedin is known for its terrible security practices regarding personal datas. It is also a big seller of private data. Which goes against "promoting privacy". This tells a lot from a symbolic perspective. But it is not only symbolic: 4. You need a Linkedin account to view the link. Meaning that the very first step of the news CEO is requiring users to have an account on a rival platform which harvest their data if they want to know who she is. 5. It means that the new CEO find her Linkedin account more important that any personal website, if any, which is philosophically the opposite of Mozilla self-proclaimed mission. I hope it is is clearer and you understand that, yes, it is a big deal. CEO position is mostly symbolic. The very first move and the fact that nobody at Mozilla even realized that it could send a bad signal is enough indication that nobody there even understand the original mission anymore. Nobody there cares about privacy. Nobody there cares about the independence of the Web.
    - 2cynykyl 3y ago
      > I was trying to be funny. You succeeded!
  - TheRoque 3y ago
    What he means is that as a CEO of a corporation that is supposed to defend things like openness, privacy, power to the users etc., it's ironic that the only tool to see her profile is from a Microsoft-owned company, which is quite the opposite of most of Mozilla's core values (well, mostly regarding privacy).
bachmeier 3y ago
Because you have to create an account, be logged in, and agree to be tracked. In other words, the opposite of the mission of Mozilla. They've long had a reputation as one of the worst offenders, and they're owned by Microsoft, which is obviously not known for respecting user privacy.

ploum 3y ago

That. Exactly. Nothing to add. Anybody without a personal ten years old website using some hand-made HTML should probably not be CEO of Firefox.

xethos 3y ago
Being in love with the tech doesn't make someone a good CEO. Notably, sometimes standing too close to a problem prevents one from seeing solutions. Let's maybe start with actual admonisions against her (and her replacement's) relevant qualifications, achievements, or character (or lack thereof), instead of grabbing pitchforks and venting about how she's the wrong person to get a greenfield browser off the ground; simply put, that's not where Firefox or Mozilla is at right now.
- ploum 3y ago
  "Being in love with the tech doesn't make someone a good CEO." I never said that this was a sufficient condition. I said it was a necessary condition. We have spent decades trusting tech-illiterate CEO’s because "they knew the business and knowing the tech was useless". See the result for yourself in every single company.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  It has nothing to do with tech. It's about a “pivot to data privacy” linking to one of the worse offender is terms of privacy invasion, that's just insane. It's as if say announced pivot to cloud computing and did so on a website hosted on AWS.
dylan604 3y ago
I have more respect for people that use hand-made HTML over some JS library that makes unreadable code
Gualdrapo 3y ago
The HN hivemind sometimes likes vintage web development and web design so much it becomes really weird.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]