Technology

59569 readers

4136 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

218

Mozilla is trying to push me out because I have cancer – CPO (www.theregister.com)

submitted 5 months ago by Engywuck@lemm.ee to c/technology@lemmy.world

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 68 points 5 months ago (14 children)

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

[+] Engywuck@lemm.ee -57 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Apologists gonna be apologists.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 17 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

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.

load more comments (11 replies)