[toyg]

Hey Brendan, it's a honour (am serious).

I'm just going by media reports and the answers the Mozilla leadership gave at the time. It was clear the pressure was on and without you stepping out voluntarily (which was the right gesture, from all points of view), something would have happened which would have damaged the project more -- in that sense, it would have been at odd with the project's aims. I expect you share the same view, or you wouldn't have stepped down in the first place.

I was just pointing out that you weren't fired and you likely would have not been fired in any case; at worst, you would have been moved to a different role; hence "demoted", since most people see the CEO as the pinnacle of a pyramid.

Would you agree that this is a fairer representation of the historical truth, from your point of view, than "Eich was fired"?

[BrendanEich]

No, I would not agree. Guess I'll have to write the book in a year and a half.

/be

[Nadya]

Other people are too polite to phrase their questions bluntly, I suppose.

You and Mozilla both claim you were not fired and that you chose to step down. Had there not been political pressure from a certain group, would you still have stepped down?

When people hear about your story - it sounds more like being smoked out of your own house. A group wants you ousted due to a donation they disagree with and will be disruptive, give bad PR, or straight up quit developing for Mozilla until and unless you leave. At that point it is within Mozilla's and your best interests for you to step down.

So if you stepped down for entirely unrelated reasons than the rabble rabble going on by a certain group of people - why then? I don't think I've ever seen that answered.

And if you did step down because of the rabble rabble going on - that is what so many people have a problem with. Even if you necessarily don't.

[PopeOfNope]

Please do. That would make for very interesting reading, imho.