I agree I didn't think Mozilla would stop being inclusive, but I have the opposite opinion of you toward for-profit/non-profit companies. If Mozilla were a for-

I agree I didn't think Mozilla would stop being inclusive, but I have the opposite opinion of you toward for-profit/non-profit companies. If Mozilla were a for-profit company, I would pretty much assume they would just pick whichever CEO could bring them in the most money, and they wouldn't care how much of a jerk he is. I'd probably be annoyed but wouldn't let it change my interaction with that company. But Mozilla is a non-profit with a manifesto. They go to great lengths to describe their principles -- what they believe is right and will make the world a better place. While I know technical ability and business savvy are still important to the CEO of Mozilla, I would expect them to put more importance on whether or not their CEO is a jerk. I don't really want to rehash the whole Eich debate from a couple days ago, but I thought it was interesting we have completely different opinions on how to hold different types of companies responsible.