> That's why long-lived organizations have internal checks and balances.
Checks and balances are for preventing individuals' interests from swaying the organization. They're useless when the whole organization's interest, or even survival, is at stake.
Mozilla is almost completely dependent on its partnership with Google, and apparently, the majority of Mozilla's board members are okay with this. And of course this decision has everything to do with the fact that 90%+ of the organization's revenue would evaporate if they refused the partnership.
> They're useless when the whole organization's interest, or even survival, is at stake.
Instead of debating theoretical scenarios, wouldn't you like to describe what such a situation would look like so we could reason what layers of internal or external controls would have to kick in so the issue could be corrected?
That's why long-lived organizations have internal checks and balances. Even if the individuals eventually fail sometimes, the organization can identify and self-correct.