Hacker News Reader

>He could repudiate the donation and this would have evaporated overnight. Those views were apparently important enough to him to prevent such an option.

So for you the best course of action would be to hypocritically pretend to be sorry in order to appease the clamour of the crows? And as he didn't, as he stayed true to his positions not flipping like a coward because he was pressured to do so, he deserves what he got?

One's principles are not admirable simply because they're principles - surely you know that?

That's irrelevant. What you think of his principles is irrelevant. He did nothing wrong or illegal except take a position that did not coincide with that of a very loud and mean crowd. Even if you or I do not agree, it's indeed admirable he had the courage not to flip to save his skin.

> The question is actually "Is it appropriate for someone who takes active steps to treat some people as undeserving of basic rights[1] to take the ultimate leadership role in a diversity focused company?"

First, it's not a "diversity focused company" it's a company focused on building a Free and Open internet. Being socially inclusive in their internal culture is secondary. Moreover Eich's definition of inclusivity was perfectly in line with Mozilla's which is that not only are sexual orientations protected but so are religious views as long as the person interacts constructively with the community. He had his personal religious views and by all accounts he didn't let them prevent him from interacting constructively with the Mozilla community.

> "...and Mozilla would suffer due to the volume of people who stated they would not work for or with someone who did what he did."

It was less than 10 employees who asked him to step down, none of them were his direct reports, how many threatened to leave?

There's absolutely no reason that he should be forced to apologize for his donation. I don't agree with the donation but I'm an American and I think it's extremely dangerous to go down the road of persecuting others for taking part in political campaigns, etc.

I agree with you that Eich's actions are to a large extent known, so I again challenge you to provide me with a single shred of evidence that in his 16 years at Mozilla Eich treated even one member of the LGBT community unfairly from his position of power.

I again challenge you to provide me with a single shred of evidence that in his 16 years at Mozilla Eich treated even one member of the LGBT community unfairly from his position of power.

But again, we're not worried about Eich's impact on Mozilla, which was, as you say, positive. I don't think he did abuse his power or hurt anybody by his actions at Mozilla - at least not from the 90's to 08 which is when the first inkling of his views became public.

More importantly, Mozilla does not exist in a vacuum - and in my mind, accepting this without protest equates to putting the success of a single company over the rights of untold numbers of people.

Let me try this another way. Put yourself in the shoes of an LGBT working there. Your boss appears to be a nice guy, very professional, a technical genius. He's up for promotion to C-E-frickin-O!

..and then you find out via the outrage machine that he's donating to groups whose /one and only/ reason for existing is to marginalize you.

Imagine how that would hit you.

What do you think that will do to your working relationship with that person?

Would you be proud to say you work at Mozilla after he becomes basically the guy running it? "Mozilla now run by a bigot" - and worse, that wouldn't even be an exaggeration!

Your boss apparently isn't such a nice guy after all.

Does it make at least little more sense now?

This role playing exercise aside. I really, truly, do not understand how you (the collective HN readers "you") can on one hand be upset at the community for expressing their displeasure at Mozilla (and sure, there were idiots that took it too far, but the consensus was loud and clear), and on the other hand, be perfectly okay with Eich reaching into his own wallet to help marginalize people (and having looked at the website again, linking Mozilla's name to it!![1]).

This view is fundamentally alien to me - I'm a geek, but at the end of the day, the people are more important than the computers. I cannot see the justice in placing Mozilla's well being over millions of people's basic rights.

[1]: http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/donation/8930/

You're moving the goalposts here--you initially wanted to paint Eich as this evil bigot, and then when presented with the "Well, in 16 years, where's the proof", you hem and haw.

Imagine you were a staunch socialist, and your boss is friendly, supportive, and competent. Then, she gets promoted to CEO. And you find out the CEO of your company donated massive bucks at a fundraising dinner for, say, Mitt Romney. What do you think your working relationship?

Hint: you shouldn't be a single-issue person. If they've done well by you and others, even if you disagree with them or function differently than them politically, you should treat them with courtesy and kindness.

I think I conceded that point in the previous post.

I think your example sucks, because as previously mentioned above, a person is not an issue. Donating to a guy and donating to a cause are two different things

you initially wanted to paint Eich as this evil bigot

With that, I am not participating further in this conversation. Either I am not communicating clearly, or you have some other reason for choosing to ignore things I've already covered. Either way, this is no longer constructive and we're both wasting our time.

Yes, I can handle working at a company where I think the CEO is a piece of crap because to me that's part of being an adult.

I've worked with people who endured things like metal holding their bones together because the people who managed them couldn't be bothered to look out for their safety. So do I care that somebody might have their feelings hurt by their CEO's social views? Not really, not when there's zero evidence he created a hostile or unfair workplace.

> and then you find out via the outrage machine that he's donating to groups whose /one and only/ reason for existing is to marginalize you.

This is just ridiculous, it's like you never took the time to understand why people supported Prop 8. They were afraid their churches would be forced to marry same-sex couples and when they expressed that fear they were called bigots so they sought legal protections. I'm not religious and I don't go around apologizing for them very often, but I think calling them bigots it's going too far.

My edit's not showing up on my other post, sorry for double-replying.

> ....The pichforks didn't truly come out until the number of his non-answers on the issue. Someone saying "we support diversity" doesn't sound right when that can be instantly rebutted with "Then why is your company run by someone who donated against LGBTs?"

> It looks bad for Mozilla, and there's no good answer for that question - really!

I think this accidentally hits the nail right on the head. Eich had to go because people couldn't handle the complexity of the situation and so they chose a simplified version where everybody involved was either good or evil. The reality was Prop 8 wasn't so great, but that's a lot of baby to throw out with a very small amount of bathwater.