I don't understand why people in these situations feel compelled respond. Why defend yourself? Why say anything publicly at all? Curious if any PR-knowledgable folks around here know if there is any benefit to such statements.
Generally, it's best not to say anything more than the minimal amount necessary; if you want to get a particular angle on the story out, you float it through friendly media, of which SiV has a preponderance. ("Sources close to the story say that ...".)
It appears that GitHub and the Preston-Werners aren't coordinating their messages (though no doubt all counsel involved have reviewed them): the GH release is appropriately terse, giving away the bare minimum of information in order to minimize both PR and legal exposure, while the P-Ws are working their angle to the story while still minimizing actual information. The P-Ws really don't have any legal exposure, so there's very little downside to their attempts to work the refs, while GH is operating under the continued threat of legal action (even if it's remote, their attorneys are obviously being appropriately cautious here, so kudos to them).
Of the two statements, Tom Preston-Werner's statement is far more effective and well-crafted than his wife's; he comes across as -- at least for public consumption -- sincere, open and genuinely remorseful while affirming his dedication to Good Things and avoiding admitting to actual culpability. It's a very nicely-handled statement, and it's instructive to compare it to how MoCo and Eich handled their crisis du jour. (The OP statement by Theresa P-W, however, is less artful, more defensive, and personalizes the criticism. Understandable from a personal point of view; not good PR.)
How much of this is true? Well, does it matter? Truth is for courtrooms and confessionals; what matters here is spin. Again, consider MoCo. In both cases, an executive was ousted but, in GH's case, the company looks stronger for it (investigation by outside counsel! No wrongdoing found! Action taken!) and the P-Ws don't look much worse (we support diversity! Created an open culture! Feel terrible that some people felt hurt!).
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). The lesson, I think, is either move quickly and aggressively (as GitHub did), or else buckle down and stay the course (as Mozilla should have -- though, as I've said previously, I have no issues whatsoever with the campaign to oust Eich). Anything else is going to make a problem into a crisis.
Eich was not ousted by Mozilla, though I can understand why reasonable people might think that. Eich chose to resign because of the toll on him and his family (including your garden-variety internet death threats) and to draw fire from Mozilla. MoCo's board tried to convince him to stay the course as CEO or CTO. The board was unprepared for the media storm, thinking the Prop 8 issue had been settled back in 2012, and it never found its footing. I think this has been a heartbreaking experience for many Mozillians.
Excellent analysis. I'm also surprised why MoCo decided against staying the course and jettisoned Eich. The majority of the complaints would have blown over in several weeks as people got bored/distracted/found something else to be outraged about. The few remaining die-hard complainers could be safely ignored as all companies have some amount of detractors.
You probably want to read the reply above yours, or the FAQ it links. The announcement from Brendan was that he had chosen to resign. No evidence has been presented that he was fired or in any way pressured by the board to leave; in fact, everybody in the know who's commented publicly says it was the other way around (and always was -- it really looks like he never wanted to be CEO but was talked into it, then wanted to resign and others tried to talk him into staying).
Why wouldn't you? I think it's natural to want to defend yourself when you're being attacked. No one wants their name dragged through the mud. It's hard to stay silent, especially considering that many people will see your silence as a sign of guilt.
There's a famous (in the UK) example of how prevalent it seems to be in politics: a Labour aide, Jo Moore[1] eventually had to resign after issuing a memo on 9/11 basically saying "today would be a good day to bury bad news"
"While many duties of a public relations department involve building the reputation of the employer, with damage control it is primarily about minimizing the negative perception caused by a crisis-situation. A crisis is sometimes the result of an unexpected event. It might also be about something that the public relations department hoped to conceal from the public or hoped would not happen. Those involved in damage control are typically on call 24 hours a day, ready to minimize negative public perception."
If the truth is on your side, you have a strong incentive to let out some significant details to change the conversation.
It depends on your view. Many times it's not worth commenting on, and unless you can refute it completely, it devolves into a he-said/she-said argument.
