Mozilla people for some reason feel they can criticize their own company publicly.
That just isn't done elsewhere. You criticize internally and form a front to the outside. Meanwhile, Mozilla employees cry for their own CEO to be fired. That's just insane and wouldn't fly elsewhere.
Mozilla has never run under the model of a traditional closed-walls corporation, at least with respect to personnel.
It's first and foremost an open-source community, and some people are paid by Mozilla Corp. or Mozilla Foundation to dedicate their entire working time to that community. Allowing open dissent has always been one of the community values, so long as it's otherwise respectful.
At least as of a couple of years ago when I left, there were no internal guidelines above and beyond these.
Socially, of course, you could shoot yourself in the foot just like anywhere else, but we did enjoy a great deal of intellectual freedom and were expected to be vocal if we thought something should be different. I can't possibly view that as a bad thing.
The Eich situation was and still is touchy, and I won't go much deeper into that other than to echo Fabrice's comment that it was originally driven by a handful of Foundation employees that weren't part of his company (Mozilla Corporation is a different corporate entity than Mozilla Foundation) and to add that within Corp there was a diverse range of opinions, both privately and publicly expressed.
As for "wouldn't fly elsewhere," there's never been any particular ethical reason why an employee shouldn't publicly speak their mind short of spilling trade secrets. The reason has always been fear of being fired. Influence via fear has some pretty sharp downsides, and I'm happy to see the current trend of people submitting to it less.
>I'm happy to see the current trend of people submitting to it less.
How so? I think most people have gotten the memo that if you want to keep your job you will toe the line and only say things that couldn't possibly offend anyone. Not only did influence via fear win, it has become so entrenched that it isn't even visible anymore.
Blurring the line between internal and external discussion in this is silly. You should be free to speak up internally and having fear there is detrimental.
But hanging internal disagreements out for the competition? Stupid. There's no upsides.
there's never been any particular ethical reason why an employee shouldn't publicly speak their mind short of spilling trade secrets
It's not about ethics. The public perception of a company matters. Hanging internal disagreements out there does not help so you're just hurting yourself.
Hi, I was harsh on your other reply -- too harsh. Sorry.
Here, I totally agree. Mozilla grew a dysfunctional pattern of participants (more likely to be employees than not in my experience, but Mozilla hired most of the active contributors) stabbing projects, individuals, and other sub-groups in the back, under cover of "being open". This was inevitable given the framing in the "open vs. transparent" document:
Even now, Mozilla punches itself in the face too often, with punchers (and sometimes punchees!) claiming it's all for the best.
Taking care to give colleagues a chance to interact over a nascent or less-than-clear technical controversy, before blogging or tweeting, is not being "closed". It is standard peer review with scalability via layers-of-the-onion socializing combined with the "hermeneutic spiral".
Shooting first, fast, and in public in a large community with competitors and press listening is "open" in a vacuous sense, but it has the downside risks you note.
I think it was already deeply entrenched so there's not much moving backwards there to be had. Over the last couple of years, I've seen a lot more employees coming out of the woodwork in the face of ethical and, sometimes, technological issues.
Maybe it's optimistic confirmation bias, but it sure seems like people are less afraid to speak publicly online.
You did claim otherwise. You wrote just above that "Meanwhile, Mozilla employees cry for their own CEO to be fired."
Mozilla Corporation (of which I was CEO) was the subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation, not vice versa. So in no case were those few Mozilla Foundation employees who tweeted against me, the people who had me as "their own CEO".
Are you stupid, or dishonest? Pick one. Your posts are BS, and crucial logical contradictions are not "nuance".
That just isn't done elsewhere. You criticize internally and form a front to the outside. Meanwhile, Mozilla employees cry for their own CEO to be fired. That's just insane and wouldn't fly elsewhere.