On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Robert O'Callahan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Samuel Sidler <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Friday, July 27, 2012 12:18:38 PM UTC+7, Robert O'Callahan wrote: >> > Another question is, "Should Mozilla compel its employees to >> 'responsible >> > disclose' work that was done outside of their Mozilla >> employment?" >> >> If they're going to use Mozilla's name, I think yes. It reflects >> incredibly poor on Mozilla and hurts its reputation. >> > > Perhaps so. However, in this case I can't tell that Mozilla's name was used > in any way beyond the statement of biographical fact that the speaker is > currently a Mozilla employee. > > I appreciate that such nuances are likely to be lost in the brutish > discourse of the Internet.
This is a very valid point. I can add a little more to that. I know from past experience journalists sometimes will just grab the employer or association of an individual (provided that relationship can be authenticated as factual) to improve credibility. How does that factor in? In the past I've personally even contacted one and asked them to remove it when I thought it was completely unnecessary and unrelated. When I read the coverage, I personally assumed it was outside of official work and the reference of the employer was just to make the subject more credible by using a well known association (employer). But I might be bias, so I'll just leave it at that. As I understand it, this stuff is the bane of many HR and corporate communications dept's in many companies. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
