←back to thread

119 points mikece | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.417s | source
Show context
eastbound ◴[] No.44446316[source]
[flagged]
replies(9): >>44446361 #>>44446382 #>>44446460 #>>44446570 #>>44446847 #>>44447210 #>>44447214 #>>44457741 #>>44460623 #
burkaman ◴[] No.44446847[source]
He wasn't fired, he resigned, almost certainly because of external pressure more than internal. The board (who had just appointed him 10 days before) tried to get him to stay in a different role after he submitted his resignation.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/faq-on-ceo-resignation/

replies(1): >>44446938 #
1. bigstrat2003 ◴[] No.44446938[source]
CEOs always "resign" instead of being fired. Is there reason to believe that this particular instance was truly voluntary, unlike every other time a CEO gets fired and then the company lies about it? I'm genuinely asking - I don't know much about corporate culture at Mozilla so maybe it genuinely was a resignation. Just pointing out that companies always claim that, and in other cases it's a lie.
replies(1): >>44447038 #
2. burkaman ◴[] No.44447038[source]
Yes, there are a few reasons:

- External pressure, including a high profile boycott campaign, was widespread and widely reported

- Brendan Eich remained a Mozilla employee for years after his donation was first publicly discussed (in the LA Times and on Twitter), with no apparent pressure to leave. The board appointed him CEO with full knowledge of his views and knowledge that they were publicly known.

- There were relatively few public statements from Mozilla employees asking him to resign, and none from executives or board members.

- I think it's unusual for companies to explicitly lie and say "we tried to get them to stay". It might even expose them to defamation claims or something. If the board forces a resignation, they'll just say "they resigned" (which is technically true) and leave it at that.