4 ms·
This is astounding to me. In an industry which claims to be a meritocracy, at a nonprofit pledged to promoting openness, a legend is no longer allowed to contri
by gred 13y ago
This is astounding to me. In an industry which claims to be a meritocracy, at a nonprofit pledged to promoting openness, a legend is no longer allowed to contribute because he dares to agree with the majority of his fellow Californians on a political issue, on his own time, with his own money. For shame.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> a legend is no longer allowed to contribute Er, since when is Eich not "allowed to contribute"? > because he dares to agree with the majority of his fellow Californians on a political issue, on his own time, with his own money. Either he voluntarily stepped down (in which case, the reason stated is clearly wrong) or he was forced to stepped down by the Mozilla Corporation board and/or the Mozilla Foundation (which owns Mozilla Corp), in which case its a lot more likely that the reason is that they lost confidence in his ability to lead because of the way he responded to the controversy, rather than that they were upset by his political stand. In any case, there is very little basis for the characterization you present.