> Part of the problem of being CEO is that people do care...heavy is the head that wears the crown, and such. Which is to say, you agree that someone might hav

> Part of the problem of being CEO is that people do care...heavy is the head that wears the crown, and such. Which is to say, you agree that someone might have a reason to avoid getting into discussing prop 8 itself, you agree that the magnification factor exists for a CEO (and therefore that Eich has a greater reason to avoid making the discussion about prop 8 than you do) -- you just think he also has a correspondingly greater need to address, because this is about governance. Right? > Which means, among other things, that I'm not the person who makes the executive decisions that governs the company's policies and initiatives. If the issue was Mozilla governance, it might be reasonable enough to wonder and perhaps even speculate about what Eich's support of prop8 meant for that in a vacuum of other information (though corresponding a donation to motivations is hardly a transparent act). But there really wasn't a vacuum. Anyone who cared to see what an Eich-influenced Mozilla would be like doesn't have to speculate based on his prop 8 donation, they just need to look at the organization's history, given that he's been a significant influence since day 1. Looking at the internal support -- even from people who are clearly on the other side of prop8 from Eich -- also says something. And the statement I linked to gave the world very clear guidance about his intentions on that front and easy standards based on which to judge him. In other words, the governance issues were pretty clearly addressed. If this wasn't about governance of Mozilla, why does Eich have any more obligation than you do to provide a statment? > I've read his statement, and his interviews. What in his statement contradicts my assertions? That he doesn't know how to make a clear statement treating the relevant issues, or that his defenders treat him as if he's like that.