[kbrosnan]

I know it is cool to hate on Mitchell Baker here. Lack of qualifications is not a valid criticism. She has a law degree from Berkley. Passed the California bar exam in '87. Was a high ranking lawyer in Netscape as their first legal hire. Designed the Mozilla Public License. Created the Mozilla Foundation. She has been in executive roles for 20-30 years.

[pseudalopex]

Yes. Mitchell Baker had every top job at Mozilla from 1999 to 2008. She was the Mozilla project's general manager, Mozilla Foundation's 1st president, and Mozilla Corporation's 1st CEO. She could be the wrong CEO for Mozilla now. But it couldn't be for inexperience.

[kyleee]

Just goes to show hiring in house is no silver bullet

[josteink]

> Lack of qualifications is not a valid criticism.

On the contrary I would consider that the absolutely most justified, objective criticism one could find.

But then I’m one of those guys who thinks DEI (as preached by today’s social activists) is horseshit, and I think meritocracy is a good thing.

I’m not sure how those things are seen from within, by people more left leaning than me.

[lproven]

> I think meritocracy is a good thing.

The term "meritocracy" was coined as a satirical parody of effective governance.

https://www.routledge.com/The-Rise-of-the-Meritocracy/Young/...

It was meant to be a negative, and is used as a pejorative: as a very bad idea that became effectively a swearword.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41427674

Be careful what you wish for.

[r-w]

“It […] is used as a pejorative” Not to nitpick, but it clearly isn’t used that way by everyone, certainly not by the person you’re replying to.

[lproven]

It is used _in the book_ as a pejorative. That is the explanation from the definition that I link to.

The problem when a prominent wealthy company attempts to run its business on the basis of meritocracy is illustrated by the existence of projects such as GNOME, systemd, Wayland, and Flatpak.

[pseudalopex]

What qualifications did she lack?

[nvm0n2]

Who said anything about qualifications? She is a terrible CEO because she knows nothing about web browsers, and clearly couldn't care less about her companies products. Why would anyone ever make a lawyer a CEO of anything except a law firm? It's a self evidently terrible idea and the results are exactly what you'd expect.

[shadowgovt]

Leadership's extensive knowledge of web browsers hasn't exactly been the silver bullet to guarantee Mozilla's future, given past performance. Technological superiority is less relevant when your opponents are monopolists who are making deals with each other to interlock their hardware and software.

Perhaps in a world where the largest threats to Mozilla's survival as a company are corporate maneuvering and deal making, a lawyer is the best CEO to choose by meritocracy argument.

[type0]

How is this relevant, as far as I know Mozilla isn't a law firm