• 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.