5 ms·

So it's hard to tell if the existing comments are trying to be snarky or if they just failed to explain their non-snarky intent, but they're getting voted down

So it's hard to tell if the existing comments are trying to be snarky or if they just failed to explain their non-snarky intent, but they're getting voted down into an abyss and I would sincerely like to know what his political background is. So far my searches only yield people who are probably not the same Chris Beard. I do not mean this question to voice any particular opinion or as a commentary on the last CEO, but given the reason a new CEO was needed in the first place, I think it would be very interesting to see the political background of the person they chose as a replacement. Are they publicly pro-gay? Or have they been relatively neutral?

mbrubeck 12y ago
Chris Beard has already been (interim) CEO of Mozilla for three and a half months now: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/14/mozilla-moving-forward/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/14/mozilla-moving-forw... I would assume, though I could be proved wrong, that any of his political/social/religious/other positions that he or anyone else wanted to make public would be well known by now. (Remember that Brendan Eich's Proposition 8 donation was well known two years before he was promoted to CEO.) My personal views, not necessarily shared by other Mozillians: Brendan's support of Prop. 8 was part of both public record and common knowledge, including his public response to the 2012 controversy around it. With this knowledge, the MoCo board promoted him to CEO. Both this decision and his decision to step down were controversial because of his public political activity. Now, if a new CEO candidate had taken actions similar to Brendan's, that would reasonably affect their views and the board's (and Mozilla's staff, community, users, partners, etc.) about whether it would best serve the project for the board to name them CEO. Obviously, eyes on Mozilla in this regard. But it does not necessarily follow - as much as some people want it to - that every belief held by the new candidate must be suddenly made public and deemed relevant to their job. I there's a version of the fundamental attribution error at work here [1]. People have decided that politicization of the CEO role is something intrinsic to Mozilla in particular, rather than something that would happen with any organization that put itself in a similar situation. (And conversely, not happen when the situation is not similar.) It truth, the same situation could repeat itself. But if it does, it's just as likely - probably more likely - to involve a different company and a different individual. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Attribution_Error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Attribution_Error
- Alupis 12y ago
  I wonder what would have been the outcome had Mozilla "stuck to their guns" and not accepted Brendan's resignation. I have a hard time believing there would have been a mass exodus from Mozilla products, and I think after a few months things would have died down. The board picked him because they felt he was the best man for the job. They knew about his past, including the public records of his political background... yet still thought he was the right guy to lead them into the future. Any CEO in place now is at-best, the second choice. I think it's a real shame we've let politics govern our business.
Alupis 12y ago
I believe the snarky comments are targeted at Mozilla's last short-lived CEO. However, what does the political background of a CEO matter? Can he do the job? Can he lead them to success? Those are the questions that should be asked about any new big business executive... not rather or not he supported issue X at some point in the past.
- id 12y ago
  A CEO should at least share the same fundamental beliefs and values with his company / organization. I don't imply that any of the Mozilla CEOs did not.
- mmatants 12y ago
  I'd argue that a CEO's past causes and political background affects their ability to lead towards success. Not because of innate analytical/communicative capacity difference in the individual, but just public relations angle and the ability to rally teammates of diverse backgrounds under one banner. It's nothing personal in that case. Just business.
  - ivanca 12y ago
    Which means that the less opinions you express the more likely is for you to be accepted by the community as CEO of a company. How ironic, freedom of speech tampered by those alleging being depraved of basic rights.
    - zem 12y ago
      "freedom of speech" does not mean people will necessarily want to associate with you after they have heard what you have to say, nor that they have any obligation to do so
      - Ntrails 12y ago
        If my use of "freedom of speech" were to say "end apartheid" and it so happened that suddenly no one would give me a job, or rent me somewhere to live, is speech still free? What about if I was preaching the Gospel, or the Koran? What about being pro gay marriage? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there is a line somewhere, and it matters. If it's illegal (in my country) to refuse to employ someone based on their sexuality, or race, or religion - can you justify the right to refuse the same thing for supporting the right to gay marriage? And if not, why does the opposite not hold?
yarrel 12y ago
Yes what's their position on DRM?

mbrubeck 12y ago

Chris Beard has already been (interim) CEO of Mozilla for three and a half months now: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/14/mozilla-moving-forward/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/14/mozilla-moving-forw... I would assume, though I could be proved wrong, that any of his political/social/religious/other positions that he or anyone else wanted to make public would be well known by now. (Remember that Brendan Eich's Proposition 8 donation was well known two years before he was promoted to CEO.) My personal views, not necessarily shared by other Mozillians: Brendan's support of Prop. 8 was part of both public record and common knowledge, including his public response to the 2012 controversy around it. With this knowledge, the MoCo board promoted him to CEO. Both this decision and his decision to step down were controversial because of his public political activity. Now, if a new CEO candidate had taken actions similar to Brendan's, that would reasonably affect their views and the board's (and Mozilla's staff, community, users, partners, etc.) about whether it would best serve the project for the board to name them CEO. Obviously, eyes on Mozilla in this regard. But it does not necessarily follow - as much as some people want it to - that every belief held by the new candidate must be suddenly made public and deemed relevant to their job. I there's a version of the fundamental attribution error at work here [1]. People have decided that politicization of the CEO role is something intrinsic to Mozilla in particular, rather than something that would happen with any organization that put itself in a similar situation. (And conversely, not happen when the situation is not similar.) It truth, the same situation could repeat itself. But if it does, it's just as likely - probably more likely - to involve a different company and a different individual. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Attribution_Error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Attribution_Error

Alupis 12y ago
I wonder what would have been the outcome had Mozilla "stuck to their guns" and not accepted Brendan's resignation. I have a hard time believing there would have been a mass exodus from Mozilla products, and I think after a few months things would have died down. The board picked him because they felt he was the best man for the job. They knew about his past, including the public records of his political background... yet still thought he was the right guy to lead them into the future. Any CEO in place now is at-best, the second choice. I think it's a real shame we've let politics govern our business.

Alupis 12y ago

I believe the snarky comments are targeted at Mozilla's last short-lived CEO. However, what does the political background of a CEO matter? Can he do the job? Can he lead them to success? Those are the questions that should be asked about any new big business executive... not rather or not he supported issue X at some point in the past.

id 12y ago
A CEO should at least share the same fundamental beliefs and values with his company / organization. I don't imply that any of the Mozilla CEOs did not.
mmatants 12y ago
I'd argue that a CEO's past causes and political background affects their ability to lead towards success. Not because of innate analytical/communicative capacity difference in the individual, but just public relations angle and the ability to rally teammates of diverse backgrounds under one banner. It's nothing personal in that case. Just business.
- ivanca 12y ago
  Which means that the less opinions you express the more likely is for you to be accepted by the community as CEO of a company. How ironic, freedom of speech tampered by those alleging being depraved of basic rights.
  - zem 12y ago
    "freedom of speech" does not mean people will necessarily want to associate with you after they have heard what you have to say, nor that they have any obligation to do so
    - Ntrails 12y ago
      If my use of "freedom of speech" were to say "end apartheid" and it so happened that suddenly no one would give me a job, or rent me somewhere to live, is speech still free? What about if I was preaching the Gospel, or the Koran? What about being pro gay marriage? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there is a line somewhere, and it matters. If it's illegal (in my country) to refuse to employ someone based on their sexuality, or race, or religion - can you justify the right to refuse the same thing for supporting the right to gay marriage? And if not, why does the opposite not hold?

yarrel 12y ago

Yes what's their position on DRM?