Lunduke
News • Science & Tech
Mozilla Sued for Discrimination by Former CEO-To-Be
The story this lawsuit tells is a Game of Thrones style power struggle.
June 18, 2024
post photo preview

The Lunduke Journal has obtained the legal documents regarding a new lawsuit which has been filed against Mozilla, makers of Firefox, by a former C-Level executive.

And parts of it read like a Game of Thrones style power struggle within the browser maker.

  • The Mozilla Chief Product Officer was being groomed to take over as the new CEO.
  • That CEO-to-be took some medical leave to treat cancer.
  • In the days (literally) before the CEO-to-be returns from medical leave... the then-serving CEO of Mozilla, Mitchell Baker was fired -- by the Mozilla Board -- abruptly.  No warning.
  • The Mozilla Board of Directors then installed one of their own Board Members, Laura Chambers, as the new CEO.
  • All before that "CEO-to-be" could return to work, from his medical leave, and take over the CEO position.

There is a lot here -- including a tale of discrimination and abuse inside the Mozilla Corporation.

Below are screenshots of large portions of this lawsuit -- the items of particular interest to tell this story -- with each screenshot followed by a brief description and some additional details.  (If you're short on time, just read the descriptions between each screenshot... that will give you a high level overview of this story.)

 

Lawsuit: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

The lawsuit was filed by Steve Teixeria (the former Chief Product Officer of Mozilla), against Mozilla Corporation, in King County, Washington (Seattle), on June 12th, 2024.

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Teixeira, the new Chief Product Officer (CPO) of Mozilla was brought on board in 2022 and was being groomed to become the new CEO (to replace Mitchell Baker).  This appeared to be the plan from Baker and at least one Mozilla Board Member.

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

As CPO, Teixeira led roughly 75% of the employees of Mozilla, and oversaw the "entire commercial product portfolio".

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Firefox is reaffirmed to be roughly 90% of Mozilla's revenue.

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

As CPO, Teixeira, was given high performance reviews.

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Mozilla opened an entire office branch -- in Seattle, WA -- to accommodate Teixeira.  Which would make sense if the plan was to make Teixeira the new CEO.

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Through September of 2023, the plan remained to transition Teixeira to become the CEO of Mozilla.

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Teixeira was diagnosed with cancer (ocular melanoma) in October of 2023.  He then took leave (under the Family Medical Leave Act) until February of 2024.  Mitchell Baker remained CEO during that time... until the days before Teixeira returned to work.

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Mozilla publicly announced their new CEO, Laura Chambers, on February 8th, 2024.

According to this legal filing, that decision was made (by the Mozilla Board), internally, roughly a week prior.  This would be "shortly before Mr. Teixeira" returned from leave on February 1st, 2024.

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

This legal filing appears to say that Mitchell Baker was fired, by the Mozilla Board of Directors -- from her role as the CEO of Mozilla due to her "declining performance".

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

The timing here is interesting.

According to the legal filing, the firing of Mitchell Baker as Mozilla CEO was "so abrupt that they did not conduct a search for a successor".

Meaning: They were in a hurry.  For whatever reason, the Mozilla Board needed to act right then.

And the Mozilla Board -- which included Laura Chambers -- voted to install Laura Chambers as the new CEO.

All of this happened the very moment the person who was being groomed to take over as CEO, Teixeira, returned from his medical leave -- and was set to resume overseeing roughly 75% of Mozilla.

Was this the motivation for moving so quickly to install a new CEO?  To do so prior to Teixeira returning and taking over?

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

The first day back as CPO, Teixeira was instructed to lay off 50 (already selected) employees.  He had questions about who had been selected to be laid off.

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Teixeira's employees were "explicitly forbidden", by the "Chief People Officer" of Mozilla (Dani Chehak), from briefing and assisting Teixeira as he returned from leave.

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Teixeira expressed concerns, with Human Resources at Mozilla, that these layoffs would "disproportionately impact" "female leaders" and "persons of color".

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Teixeira was threatened, by the Chief People Officer (Chehak) to be forcibly placed "back on medical leave" if he "did not execute the layoffs as instructed".

Do what we say, fire these exact people, and don't talk to anyone about it.  Or get out.

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

The new CEO, Laura Chambers, and the Chief People Officer, Chehak, insisted that Teixeira not only announce the layoffs... but falsely take responsibility for the layoff decision-making.

According to this document, Laura Chambers was throwing the person that was being groomed to be the CEO under the bus.

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Teixeira was "permitted only to speak with the CEO and her direct reports".  His staff -- roughly 75% of Mozilla - was delayed being moved back under his leadership.

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

There was an "outside audit" done of Mozilla's performance in "providing a diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplace culture" by Tiangay Kemokai Law, P.C..

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

According to that outside report, Mozilla's leadership provides an "inadequate response to the needs of a diverse culture" and is "incongruent with [Mozilla's] stated values and goals."

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Teixeira's former direct reports expressed, to him, "deep concerns" about leadership in his absence.  Specifically regarding "abrupt changes to strategy" and "inappropriate or abusive interactions" from the Senior VP of Strategy Operations (Suba Vasudevan) and the Chief Marketing Officer (Lindsey O'Brien).

This included complaints made to Human Resources regarding the Chief Marketing Officer.

What those complaints were, we do not know.

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

The new CEO, Laura Chambers, hired a consultant to assume Teixeira's core responsibilities after Teixeira returned from medical leave.

Teixeira then received, from the newly installed CEO, his first negative performance review.

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Teixeira -- once groomed to be the new CEO -- now was being forced to move into a new role. Which he did not want or ask for.

At this time he was able to work full time and did not request time off for medical care.

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Teixeira's family believed that Mozilla was gathering his publicly available medical information, to be used against him in his employment.  His family then begins to remove public information regarding his medical status.

Teixeira disclosed to the new CEO (Laura Chambers) that liver cancer had been detected.

That information was then shared -- according to other statements within the lawsuit, by Laura Chambers -- with all of her direct reports.  

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Mozilla then makes it clear they wished to demote Teixeira (from a C-level executive down to a Vice President role).

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Teixeira declined the demotion (which would come with a 40% pay cut and the job would end, entirely, at the end of the year).

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Mozilla's CEO, Laura Chambers, then disclosed significant, private details of Teixeira's medical conditions to other Mozilla employees.  Without Teixeira's consent.

Chambers also told other Mozilla employees that Teixeira would be demoted (the demotion that he had just rejected).

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

A key note here: Teixeira had "not requested additional flexibility related to his disability."

On April 25th, Teixeira made a complaint, in writing, that he had been discriminated against because of his cancer.  Two days later, on April 27th, the CEO (Laura Chambers), "retaliated against Mr. Teixeira" by telling him, in a nutshell, to "take the demotion or you're fired."

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Mozilla, over the next couple days, began panicking -- instructing Teixeira not to discuss anything related to his employment with Mozilla... with anyone.  Even going so far as to draft up a new "non-disparagement and non-disclosure" document with new restrictions.

By the next week Teixeir was placed on "administrative leave".  His direct reports all reassigned to other executives.  His chief of staff fired.

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Mozilla refused to provide a reason for these actions.

Mozilla then cut off Teixeira's access to all Mozilla systems (including email and messaging) -- and instructed Mozilla employees to "not communicate with Mr. Teixeira."

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

A few weeks later an "investigation" was launched into Teixeira's discrimination allegations.  However Teixeira was never contacted to participate in the investigation.  Which is strange, to say the least.

Normally an "investigation" involves all parties involved.

It would be very interesting to see the full results of that "investigation".

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Mozilla continued to falsely state that Teixeira was on "medical leave", and provided Teixeira's medical details to other employees without his consent.

Which, if true, means Mozilla is likely going to be anxious to settle this lawsuit out of court.

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

This resulted in multiple Mozilla employees being led to believe that Teixeira "would pass away imminently" -- which, obviously, would be pretty distressing for both the remaining Mozilla employees and Teixeira and his family.

 

Source: Steve Teixeira vs Mozilla Corporation (et al), June 12th, 2024

 

Based on the details of this lawsuit -- should the details all prove accurate -- it certainly doesn't paint Mozilla in a good light.

  • A CEO ousted -- abruptly -- in the moments before a "New CEO-To-Be" returned to work and could take over?
  • The Mozilla Board acting with lightning speed to install one of their own into the CEO position?
  • Silencing.  Scapegoating.  Discrimination.  Abuse.

Raises many, many questions about what has been going on within Mozilla... and how specific individuals rose to power within the organization.

This document, of course, is merely one side of the story.

Should this case move to trial, we would hear Mozilla's side of the story.  That, however, seems unlikely... as these sorts of cases -- especially when they appear this strong -- tend to be settled pre-trial.

The Lunduke Journal has reached out to to both Mozilla and Teixeira for comment.  As this is an ongoing lawsuit -- and Mozilla has a strong track record of silence and secrecy -- no response is expected.

community logo
Join the Lunduke Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
24
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Open Source Orgs Pledge Fealty to United Nations

Linux Foundation, GNOME Foundation, others pledge to "support the needs of the United Nations", promote DEl discrimination & RISE.

The article:
https://lunduke.substack.com/p/open-source-orgs-pledge-fealty-to

00:30:10
Counter-Strike 2 Switched to Wayland (for One Day)

After a number of significant issues when running under Wayland, Valve's CS2 is now back to X11 as default. Wayland advocates blame everything but Wayland.

00:13:19
Debian Has Gone Full Woke

Discriminating against White Males, covering for registered sex offenders, virtue signaling by leaving X/Twitter, and now removing "offensive" packages and supporting anti-White racism.

00:22:09
November 22, 2023
The futility of Ad-Blockers

Ads are filling the entirety of the Web -- websites, podcasts, YouTube videos, etc. -- at an increasing rate. Prices for those ad placements are plummeting. Consumers are desperate to use ad-blockers to make the web palatable. Google (and others) are desperate to break and block ad-blockers. All of which results in... more ads and lower pay for creators.

It's a fascinatingly annoying cycle. And there's only one viable way out of it.

Looking for the Podcast RSS feed or other links? Check here:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4619051/lunduke-journal-link-central-tm

Give the gift of The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4898317/give-the-gift-of-the-lunduke-journal

The futility of Ad-Blockers
November 21, 2023
openSUSE says "No Lunduke allowed!"

Those in power with openSUSE make it clear they will not allow me anywhere near anything related to the openSUSE project. Ever. For any reason.

Well, that settles that, then! Guess I won't be contributing to openSUSE! 🤣

Looking for the Podcast RSS feed or other links?
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4619051/lunduke-journal-link-central-tm

Give the gift of The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4898317/give-the-gift-of-the-lunduke-journal

openSUSE says "No Lunduke allowed!"
September 13, 2023
"Andreas Kling creator of Serenity OS & Ladybird Web Browser" - Lunduke’s Big Tech Show - September 13th, 2023 - Ep 044

This episode is free for all to enjoy and share.

Be sure to subscribe here at Lunduke.Locals.com to get all shows & articles (including interviews with other amazing nerds).

"Andreas Kling creator of Serenity OS & Ladybird Web Browser" - Lunduke’s Big Tech Show - September 13th, 2023 - Ep 044
post photo preview
post photo preview

In Mobley vs Workday, judge says a class action lawsuit can be filed. At issue is if Workday's pre-screening and pre-ranking of job applications based on their AI criteria is screening out candidates of 40+ years old. Workday's own website says its AI-based screening can help teams meet diversity targets, which might suggest AI's ranking is applying unconstitutional ranking criteria.

See https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-00770/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-00770-1.pdf

post photo preview
Open Source Orgs Pledge Fealty to United Nations
Linux Foundation, GNOME Foundation, others pledge to ”support the needs of the United Nations”, promote DEI discrimination & RISE.

“Who controls Open Source?” is a fascinating topic.

Some of the largest “Open Source” foundations are primarily funded by corporations which, by most estimations, have not historically been fans of “Open Source” or “Free Software”.

Case in point, The Linux Foundation — which brings in roughly a Third of a Billion dollars per year — is heavily funded by corporate sponsors such as Microsoft, Hitachi, Meta, & Tencent. All of which derive most of their revenue from proprietary systems. Likewise Mozilla (bringing in over $600 Million annually) is almost entirely funded by Google.

As the saying goes, “He who controls the purse strings, controls how the money is spent.”

And, of course, we must consider the political control (and influence) over Open Source. Many large Open Source Foundations and Organizations have deep, often financial, ties to political activism organizations — both Mozilla and Wikimedia being some of the more well known examples.

Well.

Buckle up, Buttercup. Because all of this is about to get a whole lot worse.

Enter the United Nations

Back in March, the United Nations announced that 16 organizations had signed on to the “United Nations Open Source Principles”.

The “UN Open Source Principles” is a set of 8 core principles which Open Source organizations are vowing to adhere to. 5 of those 8 principles being fairly obvious and, considering the topic, not at all surprising.

Expected things like “Make Open Source the standard approach” and “Encourage active participation in Open Source”. Oh, and “Make security a priority”.

Ok. Sure. Fine.

I can understand why an Open Source organization might choose to pledge to follow such ideals. In theory, they were possibly doing those things anyway.

But three of the “UN Open Source Principles” raise significant red flags.

 

The Red Flag UN Open Source Principles

Let’s go over those three, red flag raising items. Which every signatory has agreed to.

“4. Foster inclusive participation and community building: Enabling and facilitating diverse and inclusive contributions.”

Inclusive. Diverse.

Over the last several years these have become code words for “discriminate against people we don’t like”. We’ve seen this time and time again — with companies like Red Hat and IBM building entire corporate policies around what skin color they want in their employees.

All hidden behind words like “Inclusive” and “Diverse”.

And the United Nations wants Open Source organizations to commit to that form of systemic discrimination.

Already, this is not great. But it gets far, far worse.

“7. RISE (recognize, incentivize, support and empower): Empowering individuals and communities to actively participate.”

If you don’t know what RISE is, that sentence reads like a bunch of corporate buzz word mumbo jumbo. But it has a very real, very sinister meaning.

What is “RISE”, you ask? It is a codified framework for encouraging exactly the type of discrimination we just talked about — it has become an increasingly widely used tactic among DEI advocates.

RISE is an acronym:

  • Recognize the contributions of “underrepresented or marginalized” groups. Highlight the achievements of “diverse” employees over “non diverse” employees”.

  • Incentivize “underrepresented” groups (with internships, promotions, scholarships, bonuses, etc.) to encourage “diversity”. (read: discrimination)

  • Support “underrepresented or marginalized” groups with tailored resources to ensure “equitable” outcomes. (read: no meritocracy)

  • Empower “diverse” individuals with leadership roles in order to promote DEI.

Sometimes discussion around “RISE” specifically includes language regarding “DEI” and “Diversity”. Other times that exact language is left out — but the core goals and motives remain consistently DEI focused.

It is, in essence, a corporate-speak, checklist for encouraging discrimination.

Which brings us to the last “UN Open Source Principle”. The one which, quite possibly, raises the largest red flag of all…

“8. Sustain and scale: Supporting the development of solutions that meet the evolving needs of the UN system and beyond.”

Did you catch that?

Open Source organizations, which sign on to this compact, are pledging to “support the development of solutions that meet the needs of the United Nations”.

Or, put another way, those organizations are pledging to do the bidding of the UN. Whatever that might be.

The UN is asking these Open Source organizations to pledge fealty to them.

The Open Source Orgs Pledging Fealty

Which Open Source organizations are we talking about? Quite a few of the big names — names which will be very familiar to Lunduke Journal readers — including:

  • The Linux Foundation

  • The GNOME Foundation

  • Eclipse Foundation

  • The Document Foundation (LibreOffice)

And so many others. Heck, even Nextcloud and Matrix have signed on.

 

Many of these organizations (and others) recently met, in person, at the United Nations in New York to discuss — among other things — this formal agreement. This… compact.

The UN Global Digital Compact

In June of this year, the United Nations hosted “UN Open Source Week” — and invited a who’s who of organizations which control Open Source in one form or another (along with a number of smaller organizations which are politically aligned with the UN).

This gathering was officially named “an Open Community for the Global Digital Compact”.

 

Who did the United Nations make a point of inviting to speak to those in attendance?

Let’s go down the list.

 

The Gates Foundation and Mozilla.

Of course.

 

Amazon and, I kid you not, The World Bank.

 

GitLab and Wikimedia Foundation.

 

I found the inclusion of Mastodon a fascinating one. While Mastodon is small (in most ways — even considering the size of their social media network), they align strongly to the political goals and views of the United Nations (promote Leftist Extremism, censor political opponents).

 

And, of course, GitHub. Aka… Microsoft.

In addition, representatives from most of the signatories of the “United Nations Open Source Principles” agreement were in attendance (including the GNOME Foundation).

Some of the presentations were about things like “Ethical” software, interoperability with United Nations systems, “Public infrastructure”, digital “cooperation” of governments, and (of course) “inclusion”.

Many presentations — by many organizations — which already raise significant concerns.

But, and this is important, what did they talk about behind closed doors? What was discussed out of the public eye at the (many) meetings and events where attendees were wined and dined?

That remains unknown.

The Lunduke Journal has asked. The UN isn’t talking. Neither are the attendees.

The Three Masters of Open Source

But we now know, with a high level of certainty, that many of the significant Open Source organizations and Foundations now serve three masters:

  1. The Corporations

  2. The Political Activists

  3. The United Nations

I don’t know about you, but I sure wouldn’t want to have those three masters.

As always, The Lunduke Journal encourages representatives and leadership from any organization involved with this story to reach out — for any reason. Corrections, clarifications, or additional information. Considering the professed commitment to “openness” of every organization mentioned in this story, there should be no reason to continue refusing to speak to journalists regarding it.

Likewise, if you would like to become a whistleblower, there are multiple ways to get ahold of The Lunduke Journal.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

And this story needs a heck of a lot of sunlight.

Read full Article
post photo preview
IBM Taking DEI “Under the Radar”
Whistleblowers provide details on how IBM & Red Hat are simply renaming “Diversity” programs, as the company continues discriminatory hiring practices.

Back in April, The Lunduke Journal broke the story of IBM “ditching DEI policies” company wide — including at their subsidiary, Red Hat. This change was announced in the wake of multiple lawsuits against IBM (for their DEI policies) and executive orders against DEI from President Trump.

At the time, activist employees at Red Hat / IBM were not happy (to say the least). Encouraging and planning protests, “raising hell”, and even “killing fascists”.

But, now that a little time has passed, let’s take a look inside at IBM and see how their “ditching DEI” change is actually going.

DEI Staying “Under the Radar”

Thanks to whistleblowers within IBM, we know that employee groups focused on DEI still, in fact, exist. They are simply changing names in order to “stay under the radar” and avoid having “a target on their back”.

 

The “diversity-inclusion” corporate Slack channel, for example, is now named “inclusion-at-ibm”. They simply dropped the word “diversity”.

The DEI Department is Still There

Employees are using that IBM DEI Slack channel to clarify corporate changes to DEI policy. Which, again, thanks to whistleblowers… we have screenshots of.

A few key items:

  • The “DEI Department” has been renamed to “Inclusion” — and now reports to Kitty Chaney Reed (the Chief Leadership, Culture and Inclusion Officer).

  • IBM is no longer part of the Human Rights Campaign — “the HRC no longer align with IBM priorities”.

  • “People can still identify their preferred pronouns in all of IBM systems.”

  • The game-ified “Allyship Badge” system has been removed.

 

As we can see, some DEI policies and programs are gone, while others remain. And IBM is making a point of renaming their DEI Department within HR.

We gain these insights thanks to Ruth Davis — an IBM Executive and who currently identifies as a “DEI Advocate”.

 

These clarifications were published by a current member of the IBM HR team… who was originally hired as a “Diversity and Inclusion Intern”.

 

In short: DEI advocates continue to control IBM HR, and DEI departments continue to exist.

IBM / Red Hat Discriminatory Quotas

Up until recently, both IBM & Red Hat had discriminatory hiring policies — including sex and skin color quotas and even rewards for executives for hiring fewer white men.

We learned, as part of the original leaks supplied to The Lunduke Journal back in April, that “diversity goals are no longer part of the executive incentive program”.

 

Which begs the question, now that a few months have passed, is IBM still discriminating against White Men?

Getting hard numbers on the demographics of new IBM / Red Hat employees is not likely to happen for quite some time — if ever. But here is a picture, posted yesterday, of new Red Hat interns.

That might give us some indication of where things are heading.

 

Well. Huh.

Finding the “White Guys” in this photo of Red Hat interns isn’t quite as challenging as a round of “Where’s Waldo?”… but it’s close.

Now for me, personally, I truly don’t care what the demographic ratios are of employees & interns within a company. Hire the best people for the job, regardless of their sex or ethnicity. Meritocracy is a good thing.

That said, considering the multiple pending lawsuits against IBM and Red Hat — specifically regarding their discriminatory policies towards White Men (and their previously stated goals of hiring less of them) — it is more than a little interesting that their latest crop of Red Hat interns is almost entirely… people who are not White Men.

Results Are Mixed

There are a few good signs in here of IBM dropping DEI related policies — including no longer being involved in the Human Right Campaign and the removal of the (rather repulsive, anti-White) “Allyship Badges”.

Unfortunately, most of the rest of what we’re seeing is less encouraging.

  • “DEI” groups simply being renamed to “Inclusion” in order to stay on the right side of the law.

  • What appears to be continued discriminatory hiring at Red Hat (despite lawsuits and stated policy changes).

  • Executives and HR still heavily controlled by “DEI Advocates”.

  • Corporate systems still using “preferred pronouns”.

While making significant changes to corporate policies can take time — especially across large organizations like IBM — some of these internal reports indicate an unwillingness to drop DEI policies on the part of key IBM leadership.

The Lunduke Journal will continue keeping tabs on both IBM and Red Hat.

Any employees looking to become whistleblowers can find whistleblower resources at Lunduke.com.

Read full Article
post photo preview
LibreOffice Developer’s Hotmail Account Locked After LibreOffice Criticizes Microsoft
“Wow that looks bad,” says Microsoft employee.

Mike Kaginski, a LibreOffice developer (who works for Collabora), has had his Microsoft-hosted email account, which he uses for open source development, locked for “activity that violates our Microsoft Services Agreement”.

 

Kaginski discovered this when attempting to send an email to the LibreOffice development mailing list (hosted by FreeDesktop). It remains unclear if that specific email (which he sent via another address and was rather bland and technical) was the reason for the ban… or if attempting to send the email was simply the first time the ban was noticed by him.

This happened just days after LibreOffice officially accused Microsoft of engaging in a “Lock-in” strategy by creating “artificially complex”, XML-based office documents.

Are the two events related? Hard to say with any certainty.

To make matters worse, Kaginski has had no success in getting Microsoft to lift his locked email account — with the company making him jump through numerous, impossible hoops (such as requiring him to sign in to submit an appeal for his account being locked… but not allowing him to sign in… because his account is locked).

You got that? Sign in to fix the account you can’t sign in with.

Gotta love a good Catch-22.

Good job, Microsoft.

The Lunduke Journal reached out to a contact, within Microsoft, who made it clear that their group was not aware of the LibreOffice Developer’s locked account, but they were aware of the LibreOffice complaint article regarding “artificially complex” XML lock-in. Adding, “wow that looks bad”.

The Lunduke Journal’s Analysis

The odds of locking a LibreOffice developer’s email account being an official Microsoft corporate decision seems highly unlikely.

Microsoft, as a company, makes a lot of bad decisions — but this would just be too stupid for words. A massive PR blunder.

But could a single employee, feeling grumpy, have done it on an impulse? As some sort of revenge for LibreOffice’s “harsh” words about Microsoft? Sure. That seems entirely plausible?

Though, it’s also entirely plausible that some poorly designed AI-driven “naughty activity” detection bot flagged his account. Or, perhaps, the developer was reported by some random Open Source hooligan who likes to cause chaos (there’s a lot of those).

Either way, the fact that Microsoft requires people to log in — on accounts which cannot log in — in order to file an “appeal” is incredibly amusing. And is very, very typical Microsoft.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals