219
Mozilla is trying to push me out because I have cancer – CPO
(www.theregister.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2024
219 points (89.8% liked)
Technology
59287 readers
4070 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I hate to say it, but when we're talking about a leadership position, that hasn't been filled yet, looking at somebody's ability to be consistent leader is a factor.
If memory serves this executive was out for treatment, when the previous CEO stepped down in the replacement was chosen.
They simply were not available. It's hard to be a part-time CEO
Of course it's possible to be a part time CEO and there are more and more leadership positions that are job shared, etc.
Everything else is sexist and ableist bullshit, because it usually disadvantages women and disabled disproportionately.
A three month period for cancer treatment isnt gonna cause the company to fail. We've had people get hired in positions and then take their first like month off on approved leave.
If it's world war II, and you're thinking about who to make your overall theater commander, You're going to put a lot of factors into that, including is this person available.
It wouldn't make sense to make general Patton your absolute commander, and then have him be unavailable for 3 months.
Double so if they've already refused orders
It's pretty clear they're trying to fire him to due to not wanting to fire 50 developers.
Mozilla is a for-profit corporation now, there isn't room for products like Firefox that don't make money.
No, Mozilla is not for-profit now. Mozilla Corporation is a taxable subsidiary of non-profit Mozilla Foundation. That's public knowledge.
Am I missing something?
Firefox is Mozilla's most profitable product. Its millions of users enable Mozilla to make deals for sponsored content (e.g. shortcuts), integrations, and biggest of all: the default search option with Google.
That's a really good point. That's a good test of an executive, if they can't do what the board needs... They aren't a good fit either
But does the board need it, or just want it to maximize profits, like boards usually do in their typical chase of infinite growth that isn't sustainable?
And if the person won't stick up for what they think is best for the company and the people (which they've deemed firing 50 people is that), maybe they're not a good fit that way. But hey, they are sticking up for said company and 50 people, so maybe they are.
That's a good point, and that's what a long-term CEO could fight for. But this executive before they became CEO was given a test, could they do this difficult executive thing, and they didn't. If you're the board of directors, is this the person you promote to CEO? They're already giving you friction before they become the CEO
Come on be fair though. HE JUST got back from medical leave:
Pulling this shit on him the second he gets back reeks of retaliation or a desire to throw him under the bus.
Apologists gonna be apologists.
I'm not apologizing. I think this person would make a terrible CEO. For a variety of reasons. The biggest is the fact that they're going around on a campaign besmirching the company they tried to become the CEO of. That's an Elon musk move
The only worse choice for CEO is Chambers. She had a valid reason to just fire his ass. If he's not willing to do what he's told to do, then he's not willing to do his job. It looks to me like the board wanted to get rid of him for reasons that had nothing to do with cancer. Why reference the cancer at all?
I have the feeling the only reason they didn't just get rid of him was because of the cancer diagnosis. Trying to be "nice". But even if the cancer was the reason for not just cutting him loose, there's no reason to bring it up.
How does the CEO not know referencing the cancer would expose them to liability? Did they not sit down with their lawyers before sitting down with him?
Now they're probably going to lose in court and be forced to pay him off.
They should fire Chambers.
And tankies are gonna tank.