moco

_________ [+] The foundation is the 100% owner (and thus in a Parent-child relation) of MoCo.

It's a very nicely-handled statement, and it's instructive to compare it to how MoCo and Eich handled their crisis du jour.

MoCo's board tried to convince him to stay the course as CEO or CTO.

On the merits, there is public evidence that The Mozilla Foundation chief executive was publicly hostile to the departed executive of MoCo.

With this knowledge, the MoCo board promoted him to CEO.

I'm also surprised why MoCo decided against staying the course and jettisoned Eich.

Due to the corporate structure of mozilla, the Foundation executive can be hostile to MoCo ceo without being in a position of legal unsubordination.[+] Which basically render's your point moot.

But then a year later someone at MoCo runs into the same bug doing Firefox work, comes up with roughly the same patch, and it hits the tree within a day.

While MoCo isn't exactly a Chik-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby, this is the sort of the thing that causes PR flacks to either wake up in a cold sweat (if they're employees) or start planning the color of their new Aventador (if on agency contract).

I think that the real sin here was not his political donations, it was the fact that he and MoCo didn't make at least cursory efforts to wargame out the possible PR issues that they ran into, which meant they were unprepared to deal with the firestorms.

The ouster of Eich, however, just made moCo look opportunistic and weak, and Eich personally came out looking pretty bad due to his inability to craft a solid message (he said the right things about diversity, but failed to connect it to his personal narrative, so it rang hollow).

You can't justify that its not the case because Mofo owns Moco..