3 ms·
> You have no idea why I stepped down, or about anything else that went on behind closed doors. I'm going off what Mozilla has said publicly: "Brendan was not
by near 11y ago
> You have no idea why I stepped down, or about anything else that went on behind closed doors.
I'm going off what Mozilla has said publicly: "Brendan was not fired and was not asked by the Board to resign. Brendan voluntarily submitted his resignation. The Board acted in response by inviting him to remain at Mozilla in another C-level position. Brendan declined that offer. The Board respects his decision."
Source: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...
You're absolutely right that I have no idea what happened behind closed doors. If you'd like to speak to that, I'd be very interested in listening. What you've said in this thread doesn't contradict anything I've said about you voluntarily resigning.
> Calling me a name because you assume things about me
What is there to assume? You donated money to a group that was formed for the sole purpose of taking rights away from people. Rights that you enjoy, rights that caused harm to no one, rights that had no effect on your life otherwise. There's nothing at all ambiguous about what you did. It was an objectively terrible thing to do. I cried on November 2008. That was one of the hardest months of my life, and I don't even live in California. I can't imagine how much harder it was for all the families trapped in limbo as the courts decided whether to dissolve their marriages.
A bigot is "a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own." You don't like gays marrying? I don't even care, good for you. But what you did is even worse than that: you took action to legally prevent them from enjoying the same rights you have.
I'm sorry if you don't like the word, but you donated that money, and I didn't write the dictionary. I hope one day you'll come to understand what you've done and apologize, but it's been seven years, so I'm not holding my breath.
And the "intolerant of intolerance" response is nonsense designed to do nothing more than shut down debate.
> Save it.
I'd love to. On this issue, you lost. Marriage equality is the law of the land, and you can't vote our rights away this time.
Personally, I'd like nothing more than to not hear your name again. But every article on Mozilla at HN brings you up again and again. (And of course, we're also stuck with Javascript.)
- BrendanEich 11y agoParroting the FAQ shows bad conscience. Obviously it is not a complete account. I am absolutely right about stuff that was inside the non-disclosure firewall and none of your business -- good to read you acknowledge that (finally!). If we don't agree on rights, duties, definitions or reasons for long-standing laws, there is no point in arguing. Socrates said something like that. But for the record you are woefully ignorant of California law and its recent history, in particular D.P. law and why it was passed and amended. Anyway, no marriage was in limbo, as then-AG Brown stated in mid-2008 what every first-year law student knows: ex-post facto laws are unconstitutional. If it's all about feelings, there's no point in arguing. My stance, along with that of ~7M others, hurt your feelings, and I'm the proxy for all those voters (many of whom have not changed their views). So be it. Finally, I never wrote anything about "intolerant of intolerance", of course. But I am enjoying your whinging about JavaScript. Ta!