• jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 month ago

      It turns out, if you hire executives to run your non-profit, they’re just going to use it to further their own objectives. And they don’t care about the mission.

      • doodledup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Mozilla is not a non-profit. And if they were, they are legally bound to it. It’s not optional to go by the mission if you’re a non-profit.

          • doodledup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Yes, as I said. Mozilla is not a non-profit. Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit. But that was not mentioned. There is a clear distinction.

            • jet@hackertalks.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              The Mozilla term is used to be ambiguous, I think deliberately so. So they get ZERO sympathy from critical readers when they do some BS under the auspice of “no, that wasn’t the non-profit side”. You have one reputation, you live and die by your behavior.

              The Corporation / Foundation split is great for accounting and corporate structure, sure, but its not a shield against criticism of their behavior not matching their stated missions.