• jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    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

    • ms.lane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      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.

      • aname@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        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

        • FutileRecipe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            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

            • bean@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Come on be fair though. HE JUST got back from medical leave:

              On the day Teixeira returned to his job, it’s claimed, he was instructed to lead a company-wide layoff of 50 people, 40 of whom were in his MozProd organization.

              Pulling this shit on him the second he gets back reeks of retaliation or a desire to throw him under the bus.

    • bean@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        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

    • philpo@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.