4 ms·

They all said they didn't resign because of Eich. Sure, they could have been lying. But I'd rather not get into divining intentions and back room discussions no

by byuu 11y ago

They all said they didn't resign because of Eich. Sure, they could have been lying. But I'd rather not get into divining intentions and back room discussions none of us were privy to. I'm all for freedom of speech and quite opposed to the recent college campus behavior of throwing huge fits over anything remotely politically incorrect. Anyone is free to think whatever they want about my marriage and that of others, but the law should always treat people equally. When Eich donated money (and thus most certainly voted) to literally strip existing equal rights away from a minority, it ceased to be about just speech and opinion, and instead became something quite vindictive and nasty. I'm not going to get into whether it was right to pressure a company over a certain number of employees and/or when they reach a certain position in the company; I'm just going to say that I don't care for Eich's donation to Prop 8 (nor for his design of Javascript, but that's a separate discussion.)

rewqfdsa 11y ago
This idea that certain political positions are about "rights", so we can't talk about them, vote against them, or donate to organizations opposing them, is sickening. Imagine your being ousted from your job for donating to the EFF, because the EFF supports encryption and is used by terrorists? Your donation to the EFF is literally killing babies. Can't you see you're abusing the language of equal rights to demonize your political opponents? Donating to a mainstream cause is a perfectly normal thing to do. I hope that society never moves against any of your current positions and retrospectively calls you a monster.
- byuu 11y ago
  > so we can't talk about them You're absolutely perfectly fine talking about them. Anyone who disagrees doesn't value the freedom of speech. (And sadly, that's becoming quite common on college campuses these days. But I don't align myself with them.) > vote against them, or donate to organizations opposing them, is sickening. Voting to take rights away from consenting adults because you don't agree with their lifestyles is sickening. I'm not sure how I'd feel about a donation to an organization opposing rights in general. But this was specifically targeted toward persuading voters (with shady, misleading and outright false advertisements) to vote to take away rights. Not quite the same as just saying "we oppose this." This crossed the boundary from speech and became action. A very harmful action that demeaned 5-10% of the population. > Imagine your being ousted from your job for donating to the EFF False equivalence. The EFF isn't lobbying to strip a minority of their pre-existing rights, because "eww" or "religion." Further, he wasn't ousted from his job. People complained, so he chose to resign. If it's freedom of speech for Eich to make that donation, then it's freedom of speech for people to protest that donation. You can't eat your cake and have it too. > Donating to a mainstream cause is a perfectly normal thing to do. Majority support does not justify what is right. > I hope that society never moves against any of your current positions and retrospectively calls you a monster. I've gotten into plenty of trouble and lost supporters over my positions against political correctness. I don't think I'll ever be in a position as powerful as CEO, though. Still, I hope no one ever pesters me to resign from my job. However, I would never, ever vote to take rights away from a group of people I disliked, unless there were lack of consent issues (eg peodphilia) involved. So I don't believe I'll ever be in the same exact position as Eich.
  - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
    Eich was hounded out of his job. It's absolutely clear from the sequence of events. You can argue that he quit his job to end the controversy, but that amounts to the same thing. In 2008, Eich's was the mainstream view. Even Barack Obama stated in 2008 that he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman. It's ridiculous that someone should be considered an unacceptable type of person to be CEO because he donated $1,000 to a successful, mainstream proposition that passed, in a state of 35 million people, on an issue that Obama also agreed with! Nor did the bill "take away rights". Did all those people who quit the board or said nasty things about Brendan Eich vote for McCain-Palin in the 2008 elections? Highly doubtful. Mr. Eich in fact stated that his personal views would not color his performance in a leadership position, and that he had nothing against homosexuality. When it became clear that he could not shake the controversy, he chose the high moral ground of resigning. Losing this man, the inventor of Javascript and a key player at Mozilla.org for many years, was a real blow to the organization. It's never a good idea to politicize a technology organization whose mission is to create free and open tools for everyone, to be used all over the world by all sorts of people.
    - byuu 11y ago
      > Eich was hounded out of his job. It's absolutely clear from the sequence of events. Oh, absolutely. No question. If not for the outrage, he wouldn't have resigned. My point is that he could have stayed on if he wanted to. They may have lost ~10% of their userbase, but they're hemorrhaging users at such an alarming rate these days that it'd hardly be a blip on the radar. What is your alternative? Why is it free speech for Eich to donate to Prop 8, but not free speech for others to decry said donation? Should they have called for his job? Probably not, but as evidenced by Eich, people are allowed to say terrible things. > In 2008, Eich's was the mainstream view. Popular opinion is not a justification for discrimination. The litmus test I go by is: "does it harm non-consenting living beings?", and if the answer is no, then I don't have to like it, but it's not my business to interfere. > Even Barack Obama stated in 2008 that he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman. Obama was for marriage equality in the '90s, but he was running for president in 2008. He knew he could lose the presidency if he said he supported it in 2008. I don't know how I feel about that, but I think I'll take it over McCain/Palin winning. It's the same way we pretend every US president in history was a Christian. Yeah, and I have a bridge to sell you in New York. > he chose the high moral ground of resigning. The one thing I will give him definite praise for is his honesty: he could have easily donated $1000 to the HRC, said his views evolved, and the controversy would have vanished overnight. None of us could prove he was lying. I wish his views really had changed, and I would have forgiven him, but barring that, I respect that he's at least remained honest about all this. > It's never a good idea to politicize a technology organization whose mission is to create free and open tools for everyone In general, I don't like the idea of people being forced out of their jobs because of something they did in their spare time. (Especially around drug use.) I also understand that popular opinion could make the right thing to do that which would end up costing one their job. And indeed, almost no one called for his resignation prior to his promotion to CEO. I can sort of see the argument for how a CEO can represent the face of the company, but it's still a bit troubling. None of us are perfect, and a huge amount of people will protest absolutely anything you do. But what I do know at the end of the day, is that people were absolutely justified in calling out what he did as completely unconscionable. And they had every right to boycott Firefox in response. At least in my case, I never called for him to be fired. The damage to me was done when the board promoted him, knowing about this in advance as they did. I tried (and continue to try) to stop using Firefox, but Chrome is just so. awful. that I keep finding myself forced back. My kingdom for some real competition in the browser market.
chris_wot 11y ago
Really? Where did they say that? I read they couldn't comment because they weren't authorised to say anything. And no less than the New Yorker said "the company [Mozilla] claimed, rather implausibly, that the resignations were unrelated to the C.E.O. search." [1] John Lilly has since given statements that he resigned because of Eich's stance of Proposition 8. [2] 1. http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/how-mozilla-lost-its-c-e-o http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/how-mozilla-lost-... 2. https://mobile.twitter.com/johnolilly/status/451816637113438208 https://mobile.twitter.com/johnolilly/status/451816637113438...
- cpeterso 11y ago
  > John Lilly has since given statements that he resigned because of Eich's stance of Proposition 8. The tweets you link to do not say Lilly resigned because of Eich's stance on Prop 8. Lilly said, "this was not about political values but about leadership when confronted with a difficult conversation."
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    That's dissembling. The "difficult conversation" was about Prop 8 and Brendan Eich's views on gay marriage.
    - BrendanEich 11y ago
      No, John Lilly did not mention Prop 8 while on the Mozilla board, or resign over anything to do with it. He didn't see it coming either.
      - chris_wot 11y ago
        I stand corrected then! Thanks Brendan.
sangnoir 11y ago
> it ceased to be about just speech and opinion, and instead became something quite vindictive and nasty. A few points to ponder (from a non-American): 1. It was a bad precedent. How would you feel about pro-lifers hounding a CEO out because of a donation? 2. His opinion is/was not extreme or unusual. About half of the American population share his views. 3. Is it reasonable to expect the full-range personal of views (and voting patterns) of a CEO to be agreeable to every employee? My personal take is that the episode showed that no one has spine at Mozilla. Around the same time, people were raising concerns about Condoleezza Rice being on Dropbox's board; Dropbox's response was "we value her, she's not going anywhere" - and that was the end of it. I shouldn't have to say this, since what I said should stand on it's own merit: but I disagree with Eich's politics. However I don't think that it had any bearing of his capability and execution as a CEO. If my boss is professional & courteous when dealing with me, I couldn't care less if he were a KKK Grand Dragon.
- byuu 11y ago
  > How would you feel about pro-lifers hounding a CEO out because of a donation? This is difficult to compare. A donation to keep an existing right versus a donation to take an existing right away. For these to compare, it would have to be a donation toward a proposition that stripped women of the right not to have an abortion, which is nonsensical. > His opinion is/was not extreme or unusual. That's a horrible justification. There used to be majority support for slavery, segregation, anti-miscegenation, etc. > Is it reasonable to expect the full-range personal of views (and voting patterns) of a CEO to be agreeable to every employee? Like I said, I didn't want to get into who should be able to say what when. But if it's free speech for Eich to make that donation, then it's definitely free speech for people to protest against him for making it as well. Again, no one forced him out. He resigned voluntarily. The people complaining held zero power in Mozilla. > If my boss is professional & courteous when dealing with me, I couldn't care less if he were a KKK Grand Dragon. Even if you were a black employee? I'm not sure I could be so magnanimous, but kudos to you for that :D
  - sangnoir 11y ago
    FYI: I am a black employee, but as I said, not American. It goes without saying that I'm speaking only for myself. YMMV
blisterpeanuts 11y ago
Hounding Eich out of his job was bad for Mozilla. They lost my support and that of many others who were repelled by the political correctness slant of the organization. Those board members who resigned -- good riddance. The gay employee or employees who said they couldn't work for him -- go work somewhere else. Didn't Obama also say in 2008, before his views "evolved", that marriage = man + woman? Didn't the proposition pass, meaning a majority of California voters agreed with Eich and Obama? Partisan politics and social justice causes have no place in a technology organization. Obviously that doesn't mean, injustice is OK. But freedom of speech and freedom to hold one's own views on a subject without fear of being fired or pressured to quit should be held sacred. Bye, Mozilla.
- BrendanEich 11y ago
  Thanks for your support. One small corrective point that I think is important: I know of no LGBT employees who worked for me and said they couldn't keep working for me. I had conspicuous support from some really good LGBT-identifying folks (who've all since left, if I'm not mistaken). The Mozilla Foundation (not Corporation) employees who tweeted asking me to resign in the first week (on March 27, 2014) never worked for me. I don't know and don't care who among them identified as LGBT or anything. They too seem to have mostly left. I was at Mozilla from founding onward for over 16 years, by the way.
BrendanEich 11y ago
"literally" in front of "strip... rights" is a red flag for b.s. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9748538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9748538

by byuu 11y ago

rewqfdsa 11y ago

This idea that certain political positions are about "rights", so we can't talk about them, vote against them, or donate to organizations opposing them, is sickening. Imagine your being ousted from your job for donating to the EFF, because the EFF supports encryption and is used by terrorists? Your donation to the EFF is literally killing babies. Can't you see you're abusing the language of equal rights to demonize your political opponents? Donating to a mainstream cause is a perfectly normal thing to do. I hope that society never moves against any of your current positions and retrospectively calls you a monster.

byuu 11y ago
> so we can't talk about them You're absolutely perfectly fine talking about them. Anyone who disagrees doesn't value the freedom of speech. (And sadly, that's becoming quite common on college campuses these days. But I don't align myself with them.) > vote against them, or donate to organizations opposing them, is sickening. Voting to take rights away from consenting adults because you don't agree with their lifestyles is sickening. I'm not sure how I'd feel about a donation to an organization opposing rights in general. But this was specifically targeted toward persuading voters (with shady, misleading and outright false advertisements) to vote to take away rights. Not quite the same as just saying "we oppose this." This crossed the boundary from speech and became action. A very harmful action that demeaned 5-10% of the population. > Imagine your being ousted from your job for donating to the EFF False equivalence. The EFF isn't lobbying to strip a minority of their pre-existing rights, because "eww" or "religion." Further, he wasn't ousted from his job. People complained, so he chose to resign. If it's freedom of speech for Eich to make that donation, then it's freedom of speech for people to protest that donation. You can't eat your cake and have it too. > Donating to a mainstream cause is a perfectly normal thing to do. Majority support does not justify what is right. > I hope that society never moves against any of your current positions and retrospectively calls you a monster. I've gotten into plenty of trouble and lost supporters over my positions against political correctness. I don't think I'll ever be in a position as powerful as CEO, though. Still, I hope no one ever pesters me to resign from my job. However, I would never, ever vote to take rights away from a group of people I disliked, unless there were lack of consent issues (eg peodphilia) involved. So I don't believe I'll ever be in the same exact position as Eich.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  Eich was hounded out of his job. It's absolutely clear from the sequence of events. You can argue that he quit his job to end the controversy, but that amounts to the same thing. In 2008, Eich's was the mainstream view. Even Barack Obama stated in 2008 that he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman. It's ridiculous that someone should be considered an unacceptable type of person to be CEO because he donated $1,000 to a successful, mainstream proposition that passed, in a state of 35 million people, on an issue that Obama also agreed with! Nor did the bill "take away rights". Did all those people who quit the board or said nasty things about Brendan Eich vote for McCain-Palin in the 2008 elections? Highly doubtful. Mr. Eich in fact stated that his personal views would not color his performance in a leadership position, and that he had nothing against homosexuality. When it became clear that he could not shake the controversy, he chose the high moral ground of resigning. Losing this man, the inventor of Javascript and a key player at Mozilla.org for many years, was a real blow to the organization. It's never a good idea to politicize a technology organization whose mission is to create free and open tools for everyone, to be used all over the world by all sorts of people.
  - byuu 11y ago
    > Eich was hounded out of his job. It's absolutely clear from the sequence of events. Oh, absolutely. No question. If not for the outrage, he wouldn't have resigned. My point is that he could have stayed on if he wanted to. They may have lost ~10% of their userbase, but they're hemorrhaging users at such an alarming rate these days that it'd hardly be a blip on the radar. What is your alternative? Why is it free speech for Eich to donate to Prop 8, but not free speech for others to decry said donation? Should they have called for his job? Probably not, but as evidenced by Eich, people are allowed to say terrible things. > In 2008, Eich's was the mainstream view. Popular opinion is not a justification for discrimination. The litmus test I go by is: "does it harm non-consenting living beings?", and if the answer is no, then I don't have to like it, but it's not my business to interfere. > Even Barack Obama stated in 2008 that he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman. Obama was for marriage equality in the '90s, but he was running for president in 2008. He knew he could lose the presidency if he said he supported it in 2008. I don't know how I feel about that, but I think I'll take it over McCain/Palin winning. It's the same way we pretend every US president in history was a Christian. Yeah, and I have a bridge to sell you in New York. > he chose the high moral ground of resigning. The one thing I will give him definite praise for is his honesty: he could have easily donated $1000 to the HRC, said his views evolved, and the controversy would have vanished overnight. None of us could prove he was lying. I wish his views really had changed, and I would have forgiven him, but barring that, I respect that he's at least remained honest about all this. > It's never a good idea to politicize a technology organization whose mission is to create free and open tools for everyone In general, I don't like the idea of people being forced out of their jobs because of something they did in their spare time. (Especially around drug use.) I also understand that popular opinion could make the right thing to do that which would end up costing one their job. And indeed, almost no one called for his resignation prior to his promotion to CEO. I can sort of see the argument for how a CEO can represent the face of the company, but it's still a bit troubling. None of us are perfect, and a huge amount of people will protest absolutely anything you do. But what I do know at the end of the day, is that people were absolutely justified in calling out what he did as completely unconscionable. And they had every right to boycott Firefox in response. At least in my case, I never called for him to be fired. The damage to me was done when the board promoted him, knowing about this in advance as they did. I tried (and continue to try) to stop using Firefox, but Chrome is just so. awful. that I keep finding myself forced back. My kingdom for some real competition in the browser market.

chris_wot 11y ago

Really? Where did they say that? I read they couldn't comment because they weren't authorised to say anything. And no less than the New Yorker said "the company [Mozilla] claimed, rather implausibly, that the resignations were unrelated to the C.E.O. search." [1] John Lilly has since given statements that he resigned because of Eich's stance of Proposition 8. [2] 1. http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/how-mozilla-lost-its-c-e-o http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/how-mozilla-lost-... 2. https://mobile.twitter.com/johnolilly/status/451816637113438208 https://mobile.twitter.com/johnolilly/status/451816637113438...

cpeterso 11y ago
> John Lilly has since given statements that he resigned because of Eich's stance of Proposition 8. The tweets you link to do not say Lilly resigned because of Eich's stance on Prop 8. Lilly said, "this was not about political values but about leadership when confronted with a difficult conversation."
- chris_wot 11y ago
  That's dissembling. The "difficult conversation" was about Prop 8 and Brendan Eich's views on gay marriage.
  - BrendanEich 11y ago
    No, John Lilly did not mention Prop 8 while on the Mozilla board, or resign over anything to do with it. He didn't see it coming either.
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      I stand corrected then! Thanks Brendan.

sangnoir 11y ago

> it ceased to be about just speech and opinion, and instead became something quite vindictive and nasty. A few points to ponder (from a non-American): 1. It was a bad precedent. How would you feel about pro-lifers hounding a CEO out because of a donation? 2. His opinion is/was not extreme or unusual. About half of the American population share his views. 3. Is it reasonable to expect the full-range personal of views (and voting patterns) of a CEO to be agreeable to every employee? My personal take is that the episode showed that no one has spine at Mozilla. Around the same time, people were raising concerns about Condoleezza Rice being on Dropbox's board; Dropbox's response was "we value her, she's not going anywhere" - and that was the end of it. I shouldn't have to say this, since what I said should stand on it's own merit: but I disagree with Eich's politics. However I don't think that it had any bearing of his capability and execution as a CEO. If my boss is professional & courteous when dealing with me, I couldn't care less if he were a KKK Grand Dragon.

byuu 11y ago
> How would you feel about pro-lifers hounding a CEO out because of a donation? This is difficult to compare. A donation to keep an existing right versus a donation to take an existing right away. For these to compare, it would have to be a donation toward a proposition that stripped women of the right not to have an abortion, which is nonsensical. > His opinion is/was not extreme or unusual. That's a horrible justification. There used to be majority support for slavery, segregation, anti-miscegenation, etc. > Is it reasonable to expect the full-range personal of views (and voting patterns) of a CEO to be agreeable to every employee? Like I said, I didn't want to get into who should be able to say what when. But if it's free speech for Eich to make that donation, then it's definitely free speech for people to protest against him for making it as well. Again, no one forced him out. He resigned voluntarily. The people complaining held zero power in Mozilla. > If my boss is professional & courteous when dealing with me, I couldn't care less if he were a KKK Grand Dragon. Even if you were a black employee? I'm not sure I could be so magnanimous, but kudos to you for that :D
- sangnoir 11y ago
  FYI: I am a black employee, but as I said, not American. It goes without saying that I'm speaking only for myself. YMMV

blisterpeanuts 11y ago

Hounding Eich out of his job was bad for Mozilla. They lost my support and that of many others who were repelled by the political correctness slant of the organization. Those board members who resigned -- good riddance. The gay employee or employees who said they couldn't work for him -- go work somewhere else. Didn't Obama also say in 2008, before his views "evolved", that marriage = man + woman? Didn't the proposition pass, meaning a majority of California voters agreed with Eich and Obama? Partisan politics and social justice causes have no place in a technology organization. Obviously that doesn't mean, injustice is OK. But freedom of speech and freedom to hold one's own views on a subject without fear of being fired or pressured to quit should be held sacred. Bye, Mozilla.

BrendanEich 11y ago
Thanks for your support. One small corrective point that I think is important: I know of no LGBT employees who worked for me and said they couldn't keep working for me. I had conspicuous support from some really good LGBT-identifying folks (who've all since left, if I'm not mistaken). The Mozilla Foundation (not Corporation) employees who tweeted asking me to resign in the first week (on March 27, 2014) never worked for me. I don't know and don't care who among them identified as LGBT or anything. They too seem to have mostly left. I was at Mozilla from founding onward for over 16 years, by the way.

BrendanEich 11y ago

"literally" in front of "strip... rights" is a red flag for b.s. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9748538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9748538