Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO
blog.mozilla.org
blog.mozilla.org
I can't help but feel like this campaign has done a lot more harm to him than his $1000 donation could have ever done to anyone.
But the effects are actually much greater, because the CA decision was not made in a vacuum: it affected public sentiment all over the country, and the world. Delays in full marriage equality in CA mean delays in general societal acceptance of gay people, which means more bullying of LGBT children and teenagers, more suicides, more people getting disowned by their families.
Equating the harm done to him to even a fraction of the direct and follow-on effects of the prop 8 campaign seems almost offensive, to me.
[Edit: Even so, I think the reaction was a little over the top and this outcome was unfortunate. However, I don't feel bad for him.]
Bullying: tweeting/emailing/blogging an opinion on Mozilla's decisions
Not bullying: taking significant monetary action to push for discrimination against 5-10% of the country
He was not qualified for his job. Mozilla is a non-profit organization founded on ideals. It has a social and ethical mission as opposed to a directive to earn profits for shareholders. His social views made him unqualified to lead a company whose purpose was social good.
There are plenty of for profit businesses that do not fit that mold where he would be a better fit.
Additionally, he was not bullied. He gave publicly supported both in words and tangible resources initiatives to deny equality to others and people within his organization and without responded vocally and negatively. If that falls within the definition of bullying (I don't consider vocally calling out bigotry and intolerance as applicable here) then I'd argue he was a far bigger bully than those outraged by his actions and appointment.
Labeling one's belief in fundamental inequality among citizenry as a "political view" simply serves to make the argument for inequality sound OK.
It's not OK.
edit: The statement from Mozilla even says "Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech." Eich's views were contrary to this mission, so him leading the company made no sense at all.
(Whether or not one agrees with that is besides the point. Mozilla's board does, which is what matters with this decision.)
> Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.
Ok, Mozilla believes in free speech? Not according to how they have behaved. So why was their last CEO canned (oh... he "stepped down"... whatever)? If they really believed in free speech they would've left his opinion his opinion, and judged his capacity as CEO based on his work.
None of what I have read or heard about all this actually offensive until I read that sentence in the report.
I live in Czech Republic and our past president was global warming denier, he wrote several books about that. I will not judge if he was right or not, but because he had so strong and controversial opinions, it shed bad light on our country.
I think that when you are "public person" or spokesman, you have to be very careful about what you do and say, because then you aren't hurting only yourself, but whole organisation you represent.
I'm usually very angry with people who oppose gay marriage (why do they care??)
But this is just bullying. This is another form of hate.
Segregation is a lot more than a political issue, but also a human rights issue. That $1000 actively helped pass a bill that prevented consenting adult couples who wished to spend their lives together from having the same legal rights as everyone else. His donation in this case was more than having a political view, but actually helped to promote segregation.
Why would I want someone who has tried to take away my rights as the CEO of a company that I care about? If it was just his "view", this would not be the issue that it has been.
There's no evidence of this either way, and the qualifications for being a CEO are nearly orthogonal to the qualifications for being a developer. He's clearly an outstanding developer; though javascript seems the product of a damaged mind, it's the water we all swim in. As a CEO, he chooses the direction of the company and manages its employees. Being a homophobe could directly apply to some decisions that he would be tasked with making (although he promised it wouldn't and I believed him), but also speaks to his softer (non-code) decision-making skills.
>I can't help but feel like this campaign has done a lot more harm to him than his $1000 donation could have ever done to anyone.
He's been punished by not being allowed to be CEO. Feel free to cry for him, but he's 5 billionth on the list for me. The donation was made years ago, we all know about it, we still respect him and work with him. I just don't want him being my boss, or the boss of anyone I love.
It did affect his ability to fill his role as CEO of Mozilla. A CEO is not just another employee. A CEO is the face of the organization.
When the message the Ceo sends out grabs more attention and is detrimental to the corporate identity of a company, then it is time to part ways, as this will manifest into a huge consumer base loss. Why? Because consumers align themselves even stronger with corporations that push charity, tolerance and freedom as their main identity like Tom's shoes. The biggest sin a company can do in a highly competitive market is to alienate their most vocal consumer base, where they no longer see their principles reflected in the company's identity. Mozilla is now bigger than Brendan Eich.
I'm sorry, but this simply isn't true. I would argue the very first criteria for someone who "strong[ly]" supports gay marriage would be that they consider it a civil rights issue and not a political one.
Bigotry isn't a sacrosanct opinion, and just because politicians have debated about it doesn't make an issue solely political.
I disagree that those views had no effect on his qualification. Mozilla's values specifically talk about diversity and inclusion; Eich has previously acted in a way that's totally incompatible with those views.
On top of that, he did not succeed in defusing the situation before it got to this stage – something which I would expect a person in an important and visible leadership position to be able to deal with.
Remember that Eich had previously actively campaigned against removing civil rights from people employed within the ranks of Mozilla, and indeed members of the wider community. How can it legitimately be called bullying to oppose the appointment of somebody as a community leader when that person has been actively seeking to harm you?
The quote by Baker which Swisher highlighted nails it: Eich had become a distraction and his presence at the helm, and as a figurehead for Mozilla, was a distraction.
The fact that Mozilla itself is a symbol for freedom from oppression also doesn't sit well with Eich's political beliefs, and more importantly, activities.
There's also the fact that times and beliefs can change: I'm not a believer in absolutes of ethical and moral values. Often very quickly and disconcertingly for those who live through those changes. I can remember when discrimination and abuse against gays and others was simply part of the landscape and widely accepted (as it still is in too many places). But within the cultural, creative, and intellectual cores of the world, that's no longer the case.
Can we please stop comparing Eich's hateful, hurtful and downright delusional notions with ordinary political or personal views?
Being anti-gay is not a political view. And being anti gay marriage is just a very, very lame and transparent attempt to make being anti-gay seem somehow less hateful.
Hating people for what they are may be very human, understandable even, but it's not a "political view".
So, many things can be argued to be a "political view" somewhere.
In this case, you cannot speak generally like this. In this case, it really matters exactly what those political views are, not just that they are "political". And that's why there was such an uproar, and why he's stepping down.
People seem to be willfully misunderstanding this. It's not like, "Whoa! Guys! We can persecute people for their ''''political'''' views now? What's up with that?" No, it's more like we're sick of having to liberate all the people that some people find too 'othery', one group at a time. We've seen this before. We know how it goes. We know how it ends, and we're less inclined than ever to play nice with the oppressing side.
And it really does not take a genius, or an orator, to see which side is the oppressing one.
I would wager that plenty of those opposing Eich don't actually use Mozilla products. Chrome is the most popular browser, not Firefox, and their other products aren't monopolies either. Of the several screeds I read against Eich, not one of them said "We currently use a Mozilla product and now no longer will".
>“It’s clear that Brendan cannot lead Mozilla in this setting,” said Baker, who added that she would not and could not speak for Eich. “The ability to lead — particularly for the CEO — is fundamental to the role and that is not possible here.”
The most damning aspect of this was their a) inability to predict this would be an issue and b) their inability to deal with it once it did.
All he had to do was lie and say "I understand how my activities can be seen as divisive and wrong and inconsistent with my commitment to upholding the diverse values underpinning the Mozilla community and I apologize for my behaviour at the time. I will do everything in my power to make up for it and I hope the community can judge me based me on my record from this point onwards".
Then, find ways to anonymously engage in whatever political causes he supports, or wait till he's no longer CEO.
The tone deafness of his last interview was kind of the last straw.
I'm not shocked the he is stepping down, or that others in the organization appear to have applied substantial pressure on him to do so, but it makes me sad. Their statements about supporting freedom of speech are hollow: the community has pressured him to step down because he expressed an opinion not held by the majority.
I may be diametrically opposed to Brendan's views, but he has earned my respect by being honest and sticking to his values.
[1] As an out and proud queer, I'd rather someone be honest than obviously skirt around issues without addressing them. At least then we know were we stand
Are you suggesting this would've been better, in the grand scheme of things?
But I blame this entire trial and failure on the Board. It is their responsibility to vet candidates, and their inability see how this could blow up shows a horrible lack of judgment on their part.
This is close enough to what he actually said:
https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/
that it's not at all far-fetched to wonder if there's anything he could have said or done that would have been enough.
I'll grant you a) but with respect to b) there was nothing they could have really done once Eich decided to stand his ground. Who would have thought that Eich felt so strongly on this topic that he was willing to sacrifice his CEO position and possibly his future at Mozilla. He never came close to either apologizing for his actions or publicly supporting gay marriage. He really really is against gay-marriage, that's his thing.
>All he had to do was lie...
Personally, I'd rather he not lie.
This speaks volumes.
I think liberals have a hard time understanding that "bad people" people truly believe the things they say and do. If someone feels that their beliefs are justified they generally don't care if it upsets people. It seems like all you wanted from his guy was an insincere apology...or worse rhetorical nonsensical featuring all the right pleasant-sounding keywords.
Frankly, I prefer it when bigots speak freely and openly-- that way the rest of us can understand what we're up against.
He did say that. https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/
Eich gave a relatively small amount of money to a cause that happened to be supported by a majority of voters at the time(disclosure: I am gay, I don't care). For the first ~200 years of America NO ONE supported gay marriage beyond fringe gay groups. 20 years ago a celebrated sitting Democratic president signed DOMA. It was a long time ago and not a lot of money and Eich's (edit: technical)contributions outweigh his political opinions. "Not supporting marriage equality" should not be an "unacceptable" opinion. Why can't we respect people's opinions? How is this any different from railroading a staunch Catholic or Mormon or Muslim out of an organization(because if you say "god told me to feel this way" it turns into a protected class). I'd be delighted to work with him, because I don't tend to work with people on software projects with their political views in mind. It just bums me out when people capitulate to angry mobs, in either direction(just last week an organization capitulated to an anti gay agenda...World Vision, and that made me sad too).
Edit again: Why don't all you folks put your money where your mouth is and refactor all of your JS code to dart or something, just so you don't have to be tainted by evil Eich.
For years, he's been telling me about the "gay liberal agenda", which, to him, was not just about promoting gay rights, but also about silencing any freedom of speech advocating opposing viewpoints. I always pooh-poohed him and gently asserted that he was on the wrong side of history.
Now, I think he's right. That someone can be ousted from their job because of privately held opinions and personal donations is extremely scary to me -- and I'm in favor of gay rights and gay marriage. You can't correct injustice and intolerance with more injustice and intolerance.
He does not have a right to be the public facing chief executive of a private organization. I would see no issue with a pro-gay rights CEO being forced to leave Hobby Lobby or something of that nature. It's not censorship to be unable to represent an organization that is expected to have a certain political/social/cultural alignment.
When you make political speech it is necessarily public not a privately held opinion. He made a political donation showing that he supported a law that curtailed a group of people's natural Right. That donation was used to try and affect public policy. That is not some theory he holds for himself, that is action that directly affects others.
Just because people hold opinions doesn't mean you have to tolerate them.
To the extent it was primarily Mozilla employees, I don't think there's a problem. If they feel they can't work for this man, for any reason, they have the right to say so. If the Board finds that enough employees object to him, they can and should find someone else.
If it was primarily public opinion, I agree that that's unfortunate. I don't know for sure, but my guess is that public opinion, loud as it has been, played only a supporting role. If the employees collectively supported Eich, they could have said so, and I think criticism by the general public would have died down sooner or later.
On the one hand, Brendan Eich had some beliefs that were against Mozilla's core values, but on the other hand we just showed that when a mob on the Internet wants something - they get it. It's scary because this mob has global reach, unlimited power, but isn't always right.
Care to elaborate this? Last time I read, the Mozilla Manifeto[1] says nothing about marriage rights or anything marginally related.
I don't think that this follows. In this particular case, someone was promoted to a role which many felt was incompatible with his personal views; they made that known, and the person in question stepped down. That's kind of how things should work in a community enterprise.
That said, I understand he's received wildly disproportionate abuse, like death threats. That's totally unacceptable, and frankly I'm surprised that anybody feels that strongly about the issue.
I completely disagree with his position, but I don't think shutting him up or vilifying him is the answer.
I think this controversy is an indication that -- to the tech community at least -- believing that discrimination based on sexual orientation is one of those illegitimate beliefs.
There are, and should be, limits to how much we allow politics to influence business, but in this case we're not talking about issues of small import. This isn't about monetary policy or minimum wages, this is an issue related to the civil rights and equitable treatment of millions of human beings. It's OK to take that issue extremely seriously.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee
It's a large group lobbying a nonprofit to persuade it to have someone who represents the ideals they supposedly uphold. That Mozilla is a company that shouldn't stand for X political position is something lots of people agree with. That the CEO is the company face and can be held to a different standard than an ordinary employee is clear to a larger group than just activists for cause X (even if some large group on HN don't seem to grasp it).
For example, some movement to force the CEO of company X take a positive position in favor of political cause Y would have a lot harder time because it would seem much less reasonable to a larger group.
If this were a CEO who had been found to be donating to ban blacks and whites marrying it wouldn't even be a discussion.
It basically comes down to this - if Mozilla cares this much about what the internet thinks of it this strongly, then why didn't they pick someone else to begin with?
[1] http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/28/three-mozilla-board-m...
Clearly people with socially conservative views are not welcome at Mozilla.
The fallacy of this statement is that it conflates a citizen's unilateral restriction of freedom on another citizen as a "view".
Don't fall for the argument due to soft labeling of what amounts to anything but equality.
If you don't want to be treated differently for treating people differently, you can't treat people differently.
There are many views that can easily be reconciled with other roles that are very hard to reconcile with those responsibilities.
This isnt whether taxation is 38% or 35% this is whether people of a different sexual orientation are to be treated as people. I have very little patience with spineless calls for "respect" for those who which to preserve institutional disrespect.
Tolerance is over-rated and has done very little for any one.
I personally support gay marriage, and freedom of gay people; but have concerns with gay couples adopting, because as far as I am aware, the utopia in which those children adopted by gay couples would not be bullied and ridiculed does not exist.
It is a black-mark on the gay rights movement.
Eich made a mistake when he supported prop 8. History will clearly show this, like history has shown those who opposed interracial marriage were wrong.
Being on the right-side of history isn't about stomping out those who opposed you when you finally win. It's not about retribution for past slights.
Did we learn nothing from Nelson Mandela?
Nothing proves that Eich think he did make a mistake. He never apologized for that and refused to talk about it.I'm sure he would not need to resign if he did apologize. People make mistakes, and most people will forgive if an apology is issued.
He actively avoided apologising for his support of prop 8 – a law which is directly opposed to the values of Mozilla as an organisation. Had he done so, I suspect there would have been much less backlash.
You mean like overtly advocating violent overthrow of an oppressive government? Mandela was right. Just not in the way his sanitized image would lead one to expect.
Regardless of how exceptional and crystal-clear this moral issue is, if we accept personal attacks against political opponents, we are clearly "upping the ante" and creating a huge chilling effect against honest dialogue. Somewhere in the vicinity of 50% of the US holds the immoral view here, and if we believe they deserve shunning and serious personal consequences, then we are... well, pretty aggressive.
Even if aggression is warranted, are we sure we want a culture tolerant of this much political aggression? You might be in the wrong 50% next time, and unfortunately there may not be a way to create a culture tolerant of aggression only by those who are morally right / agree with us.
Clearly none of Eich's fundamental rights are violated here, but that still doesn't mean we should want to "go there".
[0] You can see from the very high volume of statements like this how scared people are to be associated with the wrong side here.
All in all, I think this was a pragmatic move. I am not a fan of this "CEO = literally the company" logic, though. I saw no reason to believe that he would use Mozilla to further an anti-gay agenda.
I agree. However, it's a little weird if you say you are a company who values diversity and different lifestyles but you have a CEO who is openly against a particular group of people. That kind of contradiction at the very top makes things weird.
The irony is when Brendan Eich shared his belief in public, he was forced out of his job. Yay openness. It's really awesome until someone says or believes in something you don't agree with. Then, get the pitchforks.
I don't know if that's a good move by Mozilla as well, although my guess is that it's a personal move from Eich who couldn't handle the pressure and the death threats (which, to be honest, I understand - even if some will say a CEO is supposed to be stronger than that).
Suffragettes were extremists. Worker-rights supporters were extremists. Gandhi was an extremist. M. L. King Jr. was an extremist. Sans-culottes were extremists.
In the history of civilisation, there are winners and there are losers, and when the revelation of who is who eventually comes, it can be a bit ugly to watch.
Personally, I would have preferred he said his mind had changed over the intervening years and that he had made a mistake. Then stayed CEO, of course.
I think the real reason he left is the fact he had enough ethical integrity to realize his brand damaged Mozilla's brand. That, and his beliefs were unchanged so he could not offer a genuine retraction.
I worry that this will now be seen as a defeat for that principle, as proof that your political views will be held against you if you become prominent enough, and given the data trails that we all leave behind us, that could get ugly. Some (but not all!) of the people who campaigned for him to quit were themselves dismissive of this principle, and if they 'won' then I can't really say I'm happy about it.
EDIT: clarity
Why I supported him as CEO: https://medium.com/p/5f43d452bd89
Considering I've lived in a socialistic country where political party you belonged to was critical to attaining any leadership position... I'd really rather not return to that world. It was toxic, inefficient and downright unfair. Politics, religion and personal beliefs shoud NOT be a factor when choosing a person for position at a company.
It has nothing to do with being a conservative christian.
> Considering I've lived in a socialistic country where political party you belonged to was critical to attaining any leadership position
i'm sure this country wasnt gay friendly either...was it?
Mozilla and the open source community have been gravely hurt by this move. The witch hunt to oust Eich from Mozilla was not just unfair, it was a travesty. He co-founded Mozilla and created some of the key technologies in Mozilla products.
I am much less inclined to support Mozilla monetarily or in any other capacity from this point on. Call me a hypocrite, call me whatever you like, but I feel that strongly. This guy should not have been treated this way.
What's more, I suspect that were he a white female or a black person or an Asian instead of a white male, the voices of hate would have been more muted. It's much harder to criticize a person "of color" or a female in this politically correct era, out of fear of being called out as a hypocrite. Which I believe them to be, anyway.
This has done nothing to improve the lot of gay Americans; in fact, it is a sorry blot on the history of gay rights and decent people of whatever sexual orientation will ultimately distance themselves from it. Mob rule is nothing to be proud of.
There were many more saying they would stop supporting Mozilla if he remained CEO. Brendan Eich is a victim not of Mozilla, but of the controversy-generating journalism industry. Keep supporting efforts for an open web and make sure you're running Adblock to avoid funding these parasites.
I didn't notice if it said what Brendan's new role would be. I hope he continues to act as a defacto CTO and that the community will allow him to continue in this role as he's proven that he's more than capable of doing so.
This whole ordeal reminds me of the Steve Jobs parable about the janitor and VP. I guess the take away is that a rank and file employee can have what ever political beliefs they want, but once you become the CEO, there are certain beliefs that you just can not have anymore.
"Jobs imagines his garbage regularly not being emptied in his office, and when he asks the janitor why, he gets an excuse: The locks have been changed, and the janitor doesn’t have a key. This is an acceptable excuse coming from someone who empties trash bins for a living. The janitor gets to explain why something went wrong. Senior people do not. “When you’re the janitor,” Jobs has repeatedly told incoming VPs, “reasons matter.” He continues: “Somewhere between the janitor and the CEO, reasons stop mattering.” That “Rubicon,” he has said, “is crossed when you become a VP."
In all seriousness, should this be seen as a kind of warning/signal? That is, if you take the moral teachings of your church seriously enough to act on them in the context of democratic processes and/or public discourse, then you need not aspire to, apply for or expect to hold on to a publicly visible secular job, such as CEO of a corporation.
When your job involves leadership of a large publicly visible organization, you are going to want to be on the right side of history slightly in advance of the people under you.
Everybody and everything is connected, and it's not just a matter of your sect vs another. Being at the head of a large organization means having a massive pyramid of people under you, supporting you. That pyramid is composed of an increasingly diverse group of people. It used to be almost entirely white men (imagine IBM or any other major corporation 50 years ago). Now, look at an organization like Mozilla, supported by legions of Internet-connected hackers with a staggeringly diverse range of views on social matters, with one in common: openness and inclusiveness.
You cannot expect a stable platform to lead from if an increasing number of the people who support you find your views that repulsive.
You almost sound like you think that someone owes this guy a CEO job? He could easily find a leadership position with a group composed of people who could support him based on his views.
I'm pretty open about RKBA/2A issues, and donate a small amount of money to things like SAF, but that's not a hugely controversial issue.
Pro-MAPS/LEAP/etc. (ending the drug war) could be controversial, but much less so from the "the drug war is racist and ineffective and should be replaced with harm reduction" perspective, vs. "drugs are great!"
If I were anti-abortion in Silicon Valley, or anti-gay, or anti-immigration, or anything else which were deeply unpopular in the majority of the community, there's no way I'd want any record of my contributions now. In other communities, the inverse views would be criticized.
When the donations aren't tax-deductible, or where the deduction isn't significant, I guess I can see people moving to fully anonymous contributions. Making viral content, anonymous financial contributions, advertising purchases online in small enough amounts that they can be made with throwaway payment instruments and nothing really linking them, etc. Anonymously funding things like an iOS game which happens to include a political message -- is that advertising? etc.
As a former Mozillian, I'm frustrated that a great person to lead Mozilla held such destructive views about other human beings. Brendan is, in my limited interactions with him, a wonderful person who has done great things. It's very difficult to know how to combine that with the idea that he is opposed to equality for a large group of people.
Whatever Eich is, whatever happens with Eich, whatever the mob is, the thing I get out of this whole thing is that Andreesen is a classy guy. Don't know if that's the biggest lesson I'm supposed to be getting out of this whole situation, but it is what it is.
Much respect to Andreesen for being willing to stick his head out in a cool and calm manner. No stoking the fire. No running away from the drama. Just a clear statement that he is able to care about his friends.
Reply below with your suggestions on what political views will be litmus tests for CEO positions in the future. We can compile a list, and then dig into the next candidate's background to make sure that all of her or his views are within the realm of acceptability.
A lot of people just want to apply this to the CEO position, but frankly a hostile work environment can be created by coworkers, too. So, I propose that we dig into the backgrounds of all the people that work at Mozilla and make sure that the organization is thoroughly purged of people who could possibly offend someone with her or his views.
People should be able to donate to what they want to, and one 'misdeed' (which is arguable) should not undo every good deed. Amazing someone doesn't 'deserve to keep their job' for donating to just about anything, let alone for a prop that actually passed in a popular vote!
So guess the lesson is that according to 'gay rights' over half the voting population in CA shouldn't have a job. Right on.
I'm staunchly pro-gay-rights and would've debated Eich vociferously on the issue of gay marriage back in 2008 if he had chosen to make his opinion public (which he didn't), but frankly Mozilla firing somebody based on a private donation to a political cause makes me want to boycott it more than the donation ever did. This seems like a textbook case of the privacy abuse that the tinfoil-hatters are usually getting so worked up about.
i didn't share eich's views here, but he's free to have them, and the reason for the problem is, ironically, the intolerance of other people (people forcing their "tolerance" down his throat).
he has my respect. not for his view on gays. but for staying true to what he did. i think this is a shame.
Apparently diversity is narrower today.
If we are going to celebrate diversity we should do so based upon the diversity of ideas and opinions unique people bring to the workplace. Quantifying this by superficial things about a person's appearance, while perhaps a decent proxy, is overall a poor way to do this. Someone who supports prop 8 (something I vehemently disagree with, but many Americans support) yet thrives in the engineering community is almost by definition a unique individual who likely brings alternative viewpoints to the table. I wouldn't be surprised if 1 in 100 engineers agree with him on this point. But no, because someone disagrees with us on a political or moral issue we can't compartmentalize it and try to appreciate what they bring to the table otherwise.
These days apparently the Internet will allow anyone to fill that role.
It doesn't mean that nobody is allowed to criticize you or your views.
In order for speech to mean something at all, it has to have consequences.
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."
- Barack Obama
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."
Candidate Obama opposed prop 8 in 2008 and strongly supported civil unions.
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598407/did-barack-obama-an...
Certainly not a very courageous stance.
In 1986, 7-Eleven stopped selling Playboy and Penthouse magazines after a two-year boycott by the AFA.
Yeah right... (And I am pro gay marriage, but I can respect if people oppose it).
Brendan Eich made a private choice in a democratic vote. This private choice was leaked 4 years after the fact. Two more years later, this private choice prevents him from stepping into a new position. Brendan Eich went out of his way to avoid discussing this private choice, and still his privacy on the matter (and a few others) was turned into a public thing and put into the front of a mob. Not good.
Also, people seem to forget that Brendan Eich was (briefly) CEO of an organization that has as many ties and contributors in parts of the world where homosexuality is problematic, forbidden, or even punishable by death. While Brendan Eich's fall from position is a win for some, I can imagine the whole campaign having nasty and unwanted consequences for open-source communities (not just Mozilla's) around the world.
What do know is that he gave $1000 to an organization that campaigned for the proposition. This is a matter of public record, by law in California. It was not "leaked" (well, it was leaked, but it was also publicly available in 2008 if anyone had bothered to look). You can find his contributions by searching here:
It would have been clearly stated on the form that he filled out to make his contribution that contributions over $200 would be made public. He knew that, and made the contribution anyway.
I'm sure there are a million things that my CEO believes that I don't agree with, but the only thing that matters is that he takes the company in the right direction.
Who is there better to lead Mozilla than Eich? The next CEO will be the second best choice or worse. I wonder who would want to step into the middle of this.
Edit: e.g., http://blog.ezyang.com/2012/08/is-haskell-liberal-or-conserv...
Basically, this is thoughtcrime.
The ability for internet mobs to create chilling effects could lead to a movement for less transparency for smaller political donations. Where I'm sitting, that wouldn't be a bad thing.
Have an incorrect viewpoint on anything? Better keep quiet if you want to be able to take care of your family.
This is pure fascism.
This is rather different.
Regardless, his stepping down seemed to be the only way to move Mozilla forward, which is a shame.
It would be hard to see a Skinhead leading a Kosher brand for the same reason.
Er, since when is Eich not "allowed to contribute"?
> because he dares to agree with the majority of his fellow Californians on a political issue, on his own time, with his own money.
Either he voluntarily stepped down (in which case, the reason stated is clearly wrong) or he was forced to stepped down by the Mozilla Corporation board and/or the Mozilla Foundation (which owns Mozilla Corp), in which case its a lot more likely that the reason is that they lost confidence in his ability to lead because of the way he responded to the controversy, rather than that they were upset by his political stand. In any case, there is very little basis for the characterization you present.
Part of Mozilla's culture is now throwing someone who helped build it up under the bus. Yes his personal beliefs may be dated on this one issue, lots of people are on the wrong side of the issue but it had nothing to do with his contributions to Mozilla. This makes me more disappointed in Mozilla just when Firefox is really killing it with gaming.
Should a person's life work be wrecked because of one bad choice? Social changes of that magnitude will have people on the wrong side of the wave for a time, it takes time to educate. I think this is the wrong way to educate, it feels a little bit like a witch hunt.
These are the targets that should be addressed.
This was a chance for tackling a large issue in a meaningful way and for whatever reason he didn't try.
Didn't move fast enough to engage with people? What does that even mean? What would they have done if they had been true to themselves? As far as I can tell, there still has only been a single action taken: Eich chose to step down.
Instead they will lie and say, "Your skills are not the right fit. Best of luck with your search."
Very few people have the courage of their convictions. Eich could have caved and said something like "I've changed my thinking about Prop 8 and I deeply regret supporting it."
Instead, he stayed true to his convictions and did the best thing for Mozilla which is clearly an organization he cares deeply about.
Whoa.
It appears the most vocal against Eich view, I imagine, same-sex marriage as a fundamental human right.
Will other topics go this way, like, for example, the "climate change" debate, especially as those topics evolve? There seems is a rising group of people who view skepticism/denial of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change akin to that level.
Mozilla's Manifesto doesn't speak to holding any particular viewpoint outside of promotion of a free, accessible Internet and free, open software.
However, the principle of "transparent community-based processes promote participation, accountability and trust" must have influenced both the internal culture and its users, who felt that Eich's actions didn't reflect their views. Chick-fil-a is in the reverse scenario but doesn't seem to experience this kind of thing.
LGBT community's witch hunt reflects less on Eich but more on the LGBR community who will now be viewed as "risky recruits".
It hurt Mozilla's image and created a distraction from Mozilla's mission among employees and the public. Everyone is discussing Eich and politics; few are discussing FirefoxOS and other initiatives.
Part of the CEO's job is to manage all that.
Next, I believe that was the right decision. Because it put Mozilla into a difficult position. You might think all this anger was excessive perhaps it was, yet it casted a negative image on Mozilla,since the CEO is a public figure for a company.
I hope this event will open up a real debate about gay rights and why it equal rights matter, because more rights for gays doesnt mean less rights for straight people,like civil rights for blacks did not end up reducing white people's rights, and then we can move on to other things,like you know , technology.
Seems like it will discourage people from expressing their view. Who wants to endanger their career?
As CTO, people might have disagreed with his opinion, but it's hard to make a salient argument that he should be forced out for having that opinion.
It's a bit different when your job entails overseeing an entire organization -- including HR -- and you financially contribute to causes that aim to exclude some of your current or future employees.
_Unless one of your cultural or religious views is that marriage is between one man and one woman._ We're inclusive of everyone! Unless you voted for something we don't like... I'm not saying you should hire anybody, but don't pretend like you will then don't.
Could he sue the US government, and/or the IRS employee that leaked the donor list?
It pains me to use a National Review blog as a source but it seems that the Obama administration hasn't made an effort to prosecute the leaker: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362667/investigation-i...
I don't believe in the kind of freedom Mozilla now stands for. I do not know Brendan's religious views. But I am a Christian, and as Christian I am opposed to gay marriage. I could not change my view on gay marriage without abandoning my faith. I could not read the Bible with any honesty and say it supports gay marriage. I cannot apologise for my view without apologising on God's behalf. Those demanding an apology from Brendan are perhaps in reality asking him to renounce his faith. By asking Brendan to step down, Mozilla has made a statement to me that as Christian that I am not welcome in their community. And by extensions nor are Muslims, Jews, Mormons, JWs etc.
Is Mozilla destined to become an echo chamber for those who support gay marriage? Is freedom just freedom to agree? Sadly whoever becomes CEO now is now second best on technical merit.
--
And for the record, many Christians, Muslims, Jews, and members of lots of other religious do support gay marriage. Please don't attempt to speak for billions of people all at once.
The action was inconsistent with the claim. A lot of people changed their minds in the years after 2008, so I was ready to believe he changed his.
Clearly because it hadn't affected his work or the way he treated any of his colleagues over the many years he worked there, and because he was extremely well qualified for the job?
Such is the dictatorship of political correctness. A scary world to live in.
Learn from his mistake as it might happen to you. Today's witch hunt is about gay marriage, in ten years it could be polyamory, underage drug usage or being forced to wear a burqa. You just cannot predict.
I wish Mozilla showed some balls here.
Are you telling me that you think some people are biologically predisposed towards homophobia?
Just because people have the right to exercise free speech does not indemnify them from the consequences. Drawing broad strokes about how we should respect people's rights to express opinions while not judging them for those opinions is not practical. It's all shades of gray.
Here are the still smoldering issues:
1. Religious right still wants to hold the marriage license as their property..Separation of Church and State occurred over 500 years ago in Western Cultures an governments.. 2. Bigotry and Ignorance
Most commenters on Hacker News don't know what freedom of speech is. They also don't understand, or maybe don't care, about the responsibility of society to protect minority groups. They also haven't read the bible or understand any of the history behind religion-based attacks on gay rights. I had no idea we had so many Fox News viewers here.
Bla bla, shame on these platitudes!
Bad times when a ceo no longer can act according to his opinion (in private). Reflects very badly upon Mozilla: no spine, get rid of Eich and talk about 'we are stronger with you involved'.
Deeply disappointed (and fwiw i'm pro gay marriage).
A quote he mentions: "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."
This is progress. This is the exact opposite of Eich's actions. Sure, he stood up for his "ideal" and didn't back down, but he objectively hurt others. Opinions, fine. But Eich took actions to hold others back. Along with those who tried to deny interracial marriage in the past, he stands on the wrong side of history. There is no lynch mob--just other folks on the internet who have the right to speak against those committing actions of hatred.
"Basic human rights. Basic human dignity."
Of course I do.
You know, I'm not sure I believe you. After all, you pretty much have to say that to keep your job.
But:
Who donates money to stop same sex marriage? I mean I have much bigger things on my plate than stopping someone from making a lifestyle choice. And I have MUCH better things to do with my money.
Honestly, I am curious.
Edit: Downvotes, but no replies. Come on, kids...if you think I'm wrong then explain.
That's why there was so much backlash against the appointment, and in itself stands as evidence that he was not a suitable choice for the position.
People too often forget that rights don't mean that there will be no consequences to exercising those rights (within the bounds of the law, and other things).
Since that was in 2008, and people can change their opinions & beliefs.
This assumes of course, he no longer believes that marriage only applies to straight couples.
Homo or hetero... You all have problems with your sexual fantasies. Did I miss to say "fucking"? Should I give a "fuck" about you? Back in your pants, stupid!
Bringing up the free market seems a bit stretched, though, since most people's relationship to Mozilla is their free browser. How much does Mozilla get from their users versus donations from companies like Google? Of course, goodwill is important for any big company, which was definitely at stake here.
How exactly was this a win for Eich's freedom of speech?
If he was a racist in favor of segregation would people still take that position? I seriously doubt it.
He's just like someone championing segregation a few decades ago. History will not look at him kindly.
The world has no place for those that discriminate.
Oh, Mozilla, you acted exactly like we expected. You spouted some condescending PR BS instead of apologizing for making an unrepentant homophobe your CEO.