Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla

Mozilla Appoints Former Marketing Head Interim CEO 204

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the but-chris-beard-hates-kittens dept.
itwbennett (1594911) writes "Following the contentious and ultimately failed appointment of Brendan Eich as CEO last month, the Mozilla Corporation has appointed Chris Beard to the board of directors and made him interim CEO. Beard starting working as chief marketing officer for Mozilla in 2004, and oversaw the launch of its current browser, Firefox, in 2005. Beard also managed the launches of Firefox on Android and the Firefox OS for mobile phones." See the official announcement. Quoting: "We began exploring the idea of Chris joining the Board of Directors some months ago. Chris has been a Mozillian longer than most. He’s been actively involved with Mozilla since before we shipped Firefox 1.0, he’s guided and directed many of our innovative projects, and his vision and sense of Mozilla is equal to anyone’s. I have relied on his judgement and advice for nearly a decade. This is an excellent time for Chris to bring his understanding of Mozilla to the Board."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla Appoints Former Marketing Head Interim CEO

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 14, 2014 @07:33PM (#46751979)

    Marketing begins to run things.

    • Normally I might agree, but Firefox doesn't need to market in the same way that other companies do. Their income comes from very non-traditional sources, and their products are free. That's not to say I *like* the idea of marketing running the place, but I think it's better than it sounds. Mozilla's marketing has been about awareness, much more than about trying to sell something.

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by supremebob (574732)

      Yeah, but he'll probably be able to keep his job as long as he wasn't dumb enough to publically say anything bad about gays.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I wonder what his stance is on abortion, surely if he has an opinion on it he won't last long in that job. While I don't agree with his position on prop 8 that is his opinion and those employees had no right to bully him out of his job for it. They wouldn't go as far as quitting or to not use Javascript (him being the inventor and all) but they wanted to get rid of him while having no consequences themselves which shows they have a least possible effort approach to supporting their cause.
    • by gsnedders (928327)

      Disregarding him as nothing more than a marketer is disingenuous at best --- Chris Beard was one of the early guys working on porting Linux to PA-RISC in the late 90s. He most certainly has experience of software engineering, and not just marketing it.

  • Not to be "that guy" but I do kind of chuckle that there are connotations to the man's last name.

  • It's not enough (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sideslash (1865434) on Monday April 14, 2014 @07:52PM (#46752099)
    Congress needs to establish a commission of inquiry to help us identify people who don't agree with gay marriage, so they can be outed and ostracized. You know the routine: "Are you, or have you ever been, a conservative/orthodox/fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, or Jew?"

    As we find these scumbags, we can work to deny them the right to start businesses in our cities like Rahm Emmanuel did in Chicago [foxnews.com]. Some of them are artisans: we can attempt to commission artistic works in conflict with their beliefs, and sue them into oblivion when they refuse [foxnews.com]. We can pressure them to resign from their jobs. [huffingtonpost.com]

    As recent Obama voters, it's not like we're huge hypocrites [liveleak.com] or anything. Please understand that the Democratic party is about democracy -- that's why we rejoice that California's popularly-voted Proposition 8 was overturned by a few activist judges. And we're about tolerance -- that's why we're trying to drive Christians, Muslims, and Jews out of public life by destroying their ability to hold jobs or participate in commerce.
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by sideslash (1865434)
      OK, I can understand the "Flamebait" mod, I get it. My post reads like provocative satire, but it's also unfortunately true. What part of it is not true, O Gentle Reader?
      • by DTentilhao (3484023) on Monday April 14, 2014 @08:19PM (#46752289)
        "Congress needs to establish a commission of inquiry to help us identify people who don't agree with gay marriage"

        And we also need to identify people with no sense of humour ..
      • by amiga3D (567632)

        If we wanted the truth we would have elected Ron Paul as President years ago. We prefer lies, tell us what we want to hear.

    • by jesseck (942036)

      Mod up... while this doesn't fit well with the utopian ideal of the DNC, it is reality.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Toth (36602)

      I would rescue the above from Flamebait if I had points. It's on-topic for this thread (sort-of). Whether you agree with it or not, it fits here.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by cbhacking (979169)

        Flamebait doesn't have to be off-topic. Off-topic stuff is supposed to get modded off-topic, not flamebait. Flamebait is saying things to get people pissed off, like talking about Congress outing and ostracizing religious people, and linking to a news story about the "gay mafia" (about as idiotic a term as I've ever heard).

        The other of the post emself admitted it was flamebait.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by s.petry (762400)

          Wrong! Wholly fuck! Absolutely wrong!

          Flamebait is not about "saying things to get people pissed off"! Flamebait is about intentionally trolling to insight a response.

          Reading a damn dictionary is not that hard, so stop making up your own definitions for words. Further: I realize that people inventing their own definitions tend to be slow so I'll attempt to clarify. An opinion presented may piss you off by nature, because you have a different opinion. I.E. "There is a God" vs. "There is no God". If a

          • Well, judging by your post (an excellent example of flamebait) you yourself have trouble distinguishing between opinions that are merely unpopular and may piss people off, and those those written to be as insulting and crude as possible.

            If I had mod points I would give you and grandparent flamebait. The content of your post is a quibble over definitions, but you start off with "Wrong! Wholly fuck! Absolutely wrong!", and end with passive-aggressively suggesting that parent needs or cares about your posting

            • by s.petry (762400)

              I'll respond to your post the same way I responded above. Read the definitions provided instead of inventing your own definitions for words and terminology.

              It takes a good amount of ignorance to confuse an expletive statement with ad hominem, and you are confused. No need to discuss the rest of your comments past that point.

              • Why did you bother to reply when you clearly did not read my post?

                I read your definitions, and your post. Flamebait: An email, usually to a message board, written with intent to offend\anger\enrage other persons, so that they will send a flaming email in reply. The post your replied to said flamebait is, "saying things to get people pissed off". The second statement lacks precision, but I don't see a huge disagreement here. You chose to respond with, "Wrong! Wholly fuck! Absolutely wrong!".

                I honestly th

                • by s.petry (762400)

                  You can not tell a difference between an expletive/exclamation and an ad homimem. Here is some basic language information and instruction. This relates directly to the language you are using, and claim to be offended by. I'd suggest that you attempt to educate yourself on the English language because this is not a University and I am not paid to teach you.

                  You claim falsely that my "Wholly fuck" and "Absolutely Wrong" are rude/rudeness/Flamebait by lumping them repeatedly into a single statement. Those a

                  • Wow, based on the exclamation points I must have really gotten your goat. Let's pick this apart, shall we.

                    You can not tell a difference between an expletive/exclamation and an ad homimem. Here is some basic language information and instruction. This relates directly to the language you are using, and claim to be offended by. I'd suggest that you attempt to educate yourself on the English language because this is not a University and I am not paid to teach you.

                    So you give people these lectures for free? That's even more pathetic.

                    You claim falsely that my "Wholly fuck" and "Absolutely Wrong" are rude/rudeness/Flamebait by lumping them repeatedly into a single statement. Those are 2 separate statements, and nowhere is there a personal attack or "rudeness" in either statement.

                    Most reasonable people who read the above would conclude you are an obnoxious person who lacks insight.

                    I provide examples and references, so the only way you can claim "flamebait" is to ignore the majority of the post and redefine words.

                    The statements "Wrong!" and "Absolutely Wrong" are statements of fact. Facts which were provided in the post and you claimed to read. If you are offended by someone being corrected you have severe psychological problems. Not that uncommon unfortunately. We have schools that reward children for being wrong because they rewarded a child for being adept and intelligent, but that is not healthy. (Yes, that is a fact based opinion and no further discussion should be had here.)

                    The statement "Wholly fuck" is called an expletive which is intended to emphasize that the person is (therefor you are) "Absolutely Wrong!" by a large degree.

                    I made it clear in my posts that you seem like a dumb asshole to me, so your again your passive insults are given zero weight. Don't worry, you can probably reuse them in another post.

                    I stand by my call. If I had mod points, and I seem to get them quite often, your post would have deservedly gotten a flamebait.

                    Thankfully people that can read and comprehend English have mod points instead of you today!

                    As stated previously, if you have to redefine words to make a claim then your claim is wrong! When you have to ignore more than 90% of a post to make your claim, that's even worse!

                    Honestly, its not even the language so much as

                    • by s.petry (762400)

                      So you give people these lectures for free? That's even more pathetic.

                      It was not a lecture, and barely even a piece of a lesson. I have zero confidence that you have adequate eduction to understand the difference between lecture and 'basic information and instruction". It's not the only example you have provided showing you completely lack fundamental knowledge of the language you are using.

                      Most reasonable people who read the above would conclude you are an obnoxious person who lacks insight.

                      Actually the post was moderated "insightful" and there is no chorus of people claiming I'm anything other than beneficial with my post. You are not a chorus, you are one person who has

                    • So you give people these lectures for free? That's even more pathetic.

                      It was not a lecture, and barely even a piece of a lesson. I have zero confidence that you have adequate eduction to understand the difference between lecture and 'basic information and instruction". It's not the only example you have provided showing you completely lack fundamental knowledge of the language you are using.

                      Well, you're clearly butthurt to be still so worked up about this.

                      Most reasonable people who read the above would conclude you are an obnoxious person who lacks insight.

                      Actually the post was moderated "insightful" and there is no chorus of people claiming I'm anything other than beneficial with my post. You are not a chorus, you are one person who has repeatedly shown a vast amount of ignorance.

                      Three people replied to your post and none of them agreed with you. I'm still not clear on how your definition of flamebait differs so greatly from the original post that you had to shout "Holy fuck!" at them. The OP was a disgusting right-wing rant, clearly meant as flamebait.

                      I made it clear in my posts that you seem like a dumb asshole to me, so your again your passive insults are given zero weight. Don't worry, you can probably reuse them in another post.

                      Pardon me if I don't give any weight to your opinion of me. Heaven forbid I should be offended by someone that focuses on 5 words out of 276 to make such an opinion, confuses ad hominem with exclamation, and equates "lecture" with "basic information".

                      The rest of your post was also crap.

                      Honestly, its not even the language so much as the hyperbole and rampant emotionalism in your post which offends me. You don't have to end every sentence with a bang (!), you know. In fact, I've sworn at you several times, but only in a measured way. Also, it kinda irks me that you called someone out for being wrong when its you who is wrong, as I already explained.

                      Your satisfaction and content with your own ignorance should offend you much more than I ever could. Ignorance leads to an irrational opinion. Focusing on 5 out of 276 words exemplifies both your ignorance and irrational perspective. I'm not offended or swayed by your irrational responses which demonstrate your ignorance of written English language.

                      Wholly Fuck! You seem to be simply trolling.

                      Ding, ding, ding! You finally get it! The irony of trolling someone who was arrogantly trying to lecture others on the definitio

                    • by s.petry (762400)

                      Well, you're clearly butthurt to be still so worked up about this.

                      There were no other people complaining about my post. It's terribly sad that you can not read what people write and invent your own words. That is not illiteracy, that is called delusional. Hint: One person corrected my use of "insight" instead of "incite", which I thanked them for correcting. You are lying about the other example as well, no need to continue down that path.

                      Further, correcting your broken logic and demonstrating your ignorance is not being butthurt. It's an attempt to make you a bette

          • >Flamebait is about intentionally trolling to insight a response.

            >Reading a damn dictionary is not that hard, so stop making up your own definitions for words.

            Modded: Ironylicious

            (ps. it's spelled "incite" in that context).

            • by s.petry (762400)
              Thank you for the correction. I made a few grammatical errors and chose a wrong word. Those errors don't may my post, opinion, or the provided facts invalid.
              • Thank you for the correction. I made a few grammatical errors and chose a wrong word. Those errors don't may my post, opinion, or the provided facts invalid.

                I see what you did their.

        • Terms like "Gay mafia" should be used in cases where a bunch of people get up and scream loudly to assassinate the character and career of someone they disagree with, because uh... because they disagree with him about gays!

          Otherwise it's stupid. Gay people wanting to not be denied employment is not "gay mafia", it's "your employer is an asshole".

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      I really don't see any problem with the bakery incident. The bakery is a business, it offers products and services to the public. One of those services is baking cakes. Like all businesses it is required to abide by anti-discrimination laws, e.g. they can't put up a "no blacks, no Irish" sign in the window or refuse to serve Mexicans. That's the deal, if you want to run a business and benefit from all the things society offers you have to run it by the rules society laid down, even if you really would rathe

      • The bakery incident is tricky. I can think of situations where it's obviously in the public's best interest to disallow discrimination, and situations where it seems like ridiculous nanny statism. For example, should a Jewish painter be required to accept a commissioned painting with heavily Christian themes? I'd suggest not. Everybody has to eat, but it seems to me that the government should leave artistic expression alone. Does that make sense? You may disagree, which is fine...
      • Businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone on any grounds. I fail to understand how you can be forced to service blacks if you can refuse service to anyone on any grounds. These seem logically inconsistent.
  • by _xeno_ (155264) on Monday April 14, 2014 @08:09PM (#46752209) Homepage Journal

    In one of the earlier Eich threads, I speculated that he was kicked out less because of his former gay marriage-related politics (he did, after all, indicate he wouldn't change Mozilla's LGBT-related policies) and more because the board wanted someone who could better monetize Mozilla. Don't forget, the board members that quit over Eich's appointment didn't quit due to the LGBT nonsense, they quit because they wanted someone "outside the organization who could provide a new business strategy."

    With this new appointment, it sounds like I was right: Eich was kicked out not over the Twitter whine-storm, but due to internal politics that want to see Mozilla turned into a money-making "product."

    Losing Eich is going to be the worst thing to ever happen to Mozilla, mark my words.

    • by amiga3D (567632)

      It's open source, I can feel the fork coming.

    • by roca (43122)

      That is totally absurd. If the board didn't want Brendan to be CEO, they wouldn't have appointed him in the first place!

      The evidence is clear that the board, and almost everyone else at Mozilla, wanted Brendan as CEO. Then came the protests, the social media firestorm, and the boycotts, and he stepped down (and was not "kicked out").

      If you believe differently from what's indicated by the observable facts and official statements, produce some evidence. No-one has so far.

    • by rahvin112 (446269)

      Ah baloney.

      Eich was tossed because he handled the controversy like he had aspergers. Those interviews he gave were cringe worthy. CEO's absolutely have to be politicians, they have to be able to handle bad situations in a manner that improves the problem not makes it worse. They can't get asked a question then provide an answer that makes it seem even worse than the initial impression. Even when handed a shit question in an ambush situation they need to be able to dance the discussion, not make it any worse

  • qualifications (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fche (36607) on Monday April 14, 2014 @08:10PM (#46752215)

    One wonders whether Mr. Beard had to do a lie detector run to prove his loyalty the cause(s) du jour.

  • Now that it's become the norm for getting people fired for holding opposing views to yerself, how about organising a boycott of the following individuals: Chloe Valerlidi, Chris McAvoy, Christie Koehler, Jessica Klein, Jess Klein, John Bevan, Sydney Moyer (ref [arstechnica.com]) or failing that having them locked in a room and made listen to Alex Jones for ever.
    • by Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) on Monday April 14, 2014 @09:40PM (#46752677)

      I haven't weighed in on the Eich thing yet because I couldn't quite put my finger on what exactly was giving me an uncomfortableness about it. I support gay marriage, I'd question why anyone would be insane enough to actually want to get married, but if they want it why not.

      What burns about the whole affair is that the relevant parties had their say, the people voted, and that should be that. Instead we've got vengeance seeking from those in favour of gay marriage, making lists, hunting people down and persecuting them by whatever means are available. In other words, McCarthyism.

      Fuck that.

    • by roca (43122)

      Jessica Klein and Jess Klein are the same person.

      Christie Koehler doesn't belong on your list. She early and publicly supported Brendan as CEO --- a stand that made her quite unpopular with a segment of her LGBT community. She deserves great praise.

    • by BZ (40346)

      Uh.... Christie Koehler explicitly said she thought Brendan would do a good job as CEO. So I'm a bit confused about why you're lumping her into your list.

      • Because this is a witch-hunt by people who think the Eich thing was a witch-hunt and not about a CEO being appointed who had demonstrated appalling interpersonal skills.

        Witch-hunts tend to get the wrong people.

        • by BZ (40346)

          Just to be clear, I think the Eich thing was a witch-hunt. As is the counter-witch-hunt.

What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.

Working...