> It's not for you to cross-examine me, though.

You're right. And in this case, I wasn't. I responded to someone who said you were fired with an official statement that contradicted it. You joined into the discussion with, "you don't know and I don't have to tell you."

Which is fine! In that case, I will continue to correct anyone who says you were fired by pointing to the only official statement on the matter that says you resigned voluntarily. Is that fair? Surely you can't blame me for not relying on secret information I don't know.

> It's nonsense to make complex human interactions involving mobs, boycotts, hidden C-suite action, and finally resignation into an either/or in every single case.

I'm definitely not making that claim in every case, only in this one case. I agree with your premise in general.

> did Nixon resign? Of course.

It was inevitable that he would have been impeached had he not. There was no indication that Mozilla did anything but stand behind you the entire time.

I do understand the point you're trying to make here. But please understand that I can't hold Mozilla's board in contempt for something without any evidence or even statements on the matter. And you don't want to give them and that's fine. Just, as such, the record stands that you left of your own volition.

> Can you not conceive of excluded middles left out by the two alternatives you pose as if mutually exclusive and exhaustive of all possibilities?

No, I can't imagine a scenario where you were both made to resign, yet Mozilla was not lying when they said you left voluntarily.

I am acutely aware that there was a huge reason for you to, even if I can't speculate that it had anything to do with your actual decision. But the protests and boycotts were a clear elephant in the room.

Like you said with agency, you should have still had it despite the protests. The protestors had zero control over the Mozilla board. Yes, you staying could have damaged the brand more (I doubt it would have done much damage, but that's a separate discussion.)

We're not making progress so let's try this from the other side: we both agree those calling for your firing were in the wrong, and should not have been listened to. I'll even go further and say it was wrong of sites like OK Cupid to use their site as a tool to boycott Mozilla by blocking your browser - as that forced their users into the boycott. But do you agree that the people voicing their displeasure with your donation and deciding not to use Firefox because you were made the CEO had a right to do so?

Discounting the two things we both agree on (calls for firing, websites blocking Mozilla), what would you have wished were handled differently? What else do you feel was unfair?

If secretly Mozilla led you to believe you would be ousted soon without resigning, then that would be on the board, and only the board, yes? And if that information remains secret, then we the public can't hold them accountable for that, can we?

...

And as for me ... it seems we're never going to get past discussing a donation you made eight years ago. So when it inevitably comes up again that you were 'fired for your beliefs', how about this?

I will respond that according to the only official statement from mozilla.org, you voluntarily resigned. I will then link to your discussions with me and state that you claim there are circumstances that are not public, and that people can make up their own mind on whatever that statement means from there. But again, that the only official record refutes their claim.

Would you accept that? It's really not my goal to keep annoying you (or anyone else) here. I just don't want to see conjecture passed off as fact. Especially not on HN.