4 ms·

Not his views, his financial support of legislative efforts to prohibit the same civil rights enjoyed by some in this country for other fellow Americans dependi

Not his views, his financial support of legislative efforts to prohibit the same civil rights enjoyed by some in this country for other fellow Americans depending on their sexual preference. He lost the confidence of the internationally focused diverse organization he was charged with leading due to that financial support.

pretendscholar 9y ago
>his financial support of legislative efforts to prohibit the same civil rights enjoyed by some in this country for other fellow Americans depending on their sexual preference. ...So his political views.
- cannonedhamster 9y ago
  Political views only matter when your company markets itself on values. Oracle and Google aren't about freedom, Mozilla is, GNU/linux is. When you want to be the rudder for a company based on values your background needs to be unassailable, in other words, boring. You can't be boring when you take an active role in a cause that is directly against your employees.
  - pretendscholar 9y ago
    Which is fine but the parent comment was trying to say he wasn't fired for his views. He was clearly fired for his political views.
    - cannonedhamster 9y ago
      Yes I must not have made my point. His political views matter only because the company is based upon values such as openness and inclusiveness. As the one running the ship his political views would have been antithetical to the company mission based on his current actions, which is why the employees revolted.
      - BrendanEich 9y ago
        Fake news. Employees didn’t revolt - it looks as if you may be referring to six Mozilla Foundation employees who tweeted. They worked for a different organization. They almost all left soon after I did anyway.
        cannonedhamster 9y ago
        You're obviously closer to the issue than myself and I'm truly glad you moved on to create something new and different with Brave. I didn't follow the issue entirely closely, but it seems that there were quite a few more than six people in the company that were upset about your monetary contributions. Realistically, you have to know that saying it was just six people that were upset about your monetary contribution is hyperbole. My comment doesn't just pertain to you nor did I really dig into the merits of your situation, but it does serve as a valid test case that even someone with your obvious and deep technical skills requires more than just those skills to be in alignment with what the company needs from a leader.
        BrendanEich 9y ago
        Near as I can tell, there were employees unhappy but not about to quit, some of whom I met and talked with before I left. And when I left there were many unhappy employees, of various backgrounds. I know because a large number sent me hand-written notes (very much appreciated). To this day you can find people angry on both "sides" of the fake-news version of what happened. It constitutes an open wound for Mozilla which people salt and pick at over more recent or ongoing PR mistakes. That's a shame, because the truth is far removed from the cover story. I'll get to it as a memoirist, if ever, only years from now.
        cannonedhamster 9y ago
        Truly, thanks for sharing this. I can't imagine how much anxiety and stress the situation created, and I'm quite sure that you had quite a few people that truly enjoyed and respected your leadership. I think your memoir would definitely find an audience. Best of luck to you in your current and future pursuits.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  His political actions. Views are just beliefs. Mozilla is a private organization where Brendan Eich served at the pleasure of its body. What if he was pushing to rescind suffrage for women or to re-instate Jim Crow? Pushing for the legalization of child cannibalism by funding legislative efforts in that direction?
  - pretendscholar 9y ago
    What if a woman pushed for the disenfranchisement of men believing that society would be better for it? I'd at least like to hear her out, maybe I'd even support it but I can't know if I can't even hear the view. I have no problem personally with hearing political views because I believe that over time and through discourse human society converges on better outcomes. Someone could state that they would like the return of Jim Crow but I'm confident that the people who hold those views in the long run will be outnumbered.
  - refurb 9y ago
    So if a company decided to fire someone because they supported legalization of hard drugs (another controversial topic), including giving money to political organizations, you'd fully support them? Or it crystal clear that legalization of hard drugs is one of those ideas that is so obviously right than any opposition to it should be squelched?
- nstart 9y ago
  I find it troubling that views based deeply in religious beliefs (gay people are unnatural and somehow should be sidelined for their differences makes sense only inside of a highly religious context) or just pure unscientific opinion are somehow being taken as a political view. Back in the days, skin colour was a political view. That was a dumb idea. And the effects of that is still felt up to today. These days sexual orientation and climate change are political views. This isn't ok. And we shouldn't treat it as such. Bigotry and un-science don't deserve a seat as a "reasonable voice" at the table of progress no matter who you are.
  - refurb 9y ago
    Why not let ideas be judged on their own merit, rather than pre-judged and banned from conversation? Everyone likes to use examples like racial differences as an example. How about something more gray? Should someone be able to voice opposition to immigration? Or is that another one of those ideas that "don't deserve a seat at the table"?
    - nstart 9y ago
      > Should someone be able to voice opposition to immigration? Absolutely. Few things to note here: 1. The topic of immigration is a valid political discussion with a large amount of studies done from the perspectives of science, economics, and even ethics and philosophy. Taking a stance in it is a political stance and that conversation is crucial to progress. 2. That said, it's not a valid comparison to what was actually being mentioned in my comment which was religious or non scientific views getting a free pass to masquerade as political stances. Those were the ones I said that don't deserve a seat at the table 3. To expand on the discussion of what's valid to be at the table though, immigration is a valid topic. "No people of a certain ethnicity should be allowed to immigrate because they are bad people" is not a political stance. That's a baseless bigoted view that pretends to be a political stance. That can be shown out of the room. 4. One last thing on above. There are close but grey line topics related to the above statements that should be part of discourse. Eg - people from certain areas of the world have a higher risk of being radicalized than others prior to immigration. Statistically provable. Good science. Worthy of discussion. Making the outcome of that "ban everyone of the given ethnicity from that area" though is the kind of discussion we really need to stop these days.
- jonathankoren 9y ago
  Yes, his political views, which ran counter to the Foundation’s views. His actions hurt the brand and undermined the mission.
  - pretendscholar 9y ago
    Right, which is fine but I just wanted the above comment to stop playing hide the ball. He was fired for his political views.

pretendscholar 9y ago

>his financial support of legislative efforts to prohibit the same civil rights enjoyed by some in this country for other fellow Americans depending on their sexual preference. ...So his political views.

cannonedhamster 9y ago
Political views only matter when your company markets itself on values. Oracle and Google aren't about freedom, Mozilla is, GNU/linux is. When you want to be the rudder for a company based on values your background needs to be unassailable, in other words, boring. You can't be boring when you take an active role in a cause that is directly against your employees.
- pretendscholar 9y ago
  Which is fine but the parent comment was trying to say he wasn't fired for his views. He was clearly fired for his political views.
  - cannonedhamster 9y ago
    Yes I must not have made my point. His political views matter only because the company is based upon values such as openness and inclusiveness. As the one running the ship his political views would have been antithetical to the company mission based on his current actions, which is why the employees revolted.
    - BrendanEich 9y ago
      Fake news. Employees didn’t revolt - it looks as if you may be referring to six Mozilla Foundation employees who tweeted. They worked for a different organization. They almost all left soon after I did anyway.
      - cannonedhamster 9y ago
        You're obviously closer to the issue than myself and I'm truly glad you moved on to create something new and different with Brave. I didn't follow the issue entirely closely, but it seems that there were quite a few more than six people in the company that were upset about your monetary contributions. Realistically, you have to know that saying it was just six people that were upset about your monetary contribution is hyperbole. My comment doesn't just pertain to you nor did I really dig into the merits of your situation, but it does serve as a valid test case that even someone with your obvious and deep technical skills requires more than just those skills to be in alignment with what the company needs from a leader.
        BrendanEich 9y ago
        Near as I can tell, there were employees unhappy but not about to quit, some of whom I met and talked with before I left. And when I left there were many unhappy employees, of various backgrounds. I know because a large number sent me hand-written notes (very much appreciated). To this day you can find people angry on both "sides" of the fake-news version of what happened. It constitutes an open wound for Mozilla which people salt and pick at over more recent or ongoing PR mistakes. That's a shame, because the truth is far removed from the cover story. I'll get to it as a memoirist, if ever, only years from now.
        cannonedhamster 9y ago
        Truly, thanks for sharing this. I can't imagine how much anxiety and stress the situation created, and I'm quite sure that you had quite a few people that truly enjoyed and respected your leadership. I think your memoir would definitely find an audience. Best of luck to you in your current and future pursuits.
wavefunction 9y ago
His political actions. Views are just beliefs. Mozilla is a private organization where Brendan Eich served at the pleasure of its body. What if he was pushing to rescind suffrage for women or to re-instate Jim Crow? Pushing for the legalization of child cannibalism by funding legislative efforts in that direction?
- pretendscholar 9y ago
  What if a woman pushed for the disenfranchisement of men believing that society would be better for it? I'd at least like to hear her out, maybe I'd even support it but I can't know if I can't even hear the view. I have no problem personally with hearing political views because I believe that over time and through discourse human society converges on better outcomes. Someone could state that they would like the return of Jim Crow but I'm confident that the people who hold those views in the long run will be outnumbered.
- refurb 9y ago
  So if a company decided to fire someone because they supported legalization of hard drugs (another controversial topic), including giving money to political organizations, you'd fully support them? Or it crystal clear that legalization of hard drugs is one of those ideas that is so obviously right than any opposition to it should be squelched?
nstart 9y ago
I find it troubling that views based deeply in religious beliefs (gay people are unnatural and somehow should be sidelined for their differences makes sense only inside of a highly religious context) or just pure unscientific opinion are somehow being taken as a political view. Back in the days, skin colour was a political view. That was a dumb idea. And the effects of that is still felt up to today. These days sexual orientation and climate change are political views. This isn't ok. And we shouldn't treat it as such. Bigotry and un-science don't deserve a seat as a "reasonable voice" at the table of progress no matter who you are.
- refurb 9y ago
  Why not let ideas be judged on their own merit, rather than pre-judged and banned from conversation? Everyone likes to use examples like racial differences as an example. How about something more gray? Should someone be able to voice opposition to immigration? Or is that another one of those ideas that "don't deserve a seat at the table"?
  - nstart 9y ago
    > Should someone be able to voice opposition to immigration? Absolutely. Few things to note here: 1. The topic of immigration is a valid political discussion with a large amount of studies done from the perspectives of science, economics, and even ethics and philosophy. Taking a stance in it is a political stance and that conversation is crucial to progress. 2. That said, it's not a valid comparison to what was actually being mentioned in my comment which was religious or non scientific views getting a free pass to masquerade as political stances. Those were the ones I said that don't deserve a seat at the table 3. To expand on the discussion of what's valid to be at the table though, immigration is a valid topic. "No people of a certain ethnicity should be allowed to immigrate because they are bad people" is not a political stance. That's a baseless bigoted view that pretends to be a political stance. That can be shown out of the room. 4. One last thing on above. There are close but grey line topics related to the above statements that should be part of discourse. Eg - people from certain areas of the world have a higher risk of being radicalized than others prior to immigration. Statistically provable. Good science. Worthy of discussion. Making the outcome of that "ban everyone of the given ethnicity from that area" though is the kind of discussion we really need to stop these days.
jonathankoren 9y ago
Yes, his political views, which ran counter to the Foundation’s views. His actions hurt the brand and undermined the mission.
- pretendscholar 9y ago
  Right, which is fine but I just wanted the above comment to stop playing hide the ball. He was fired for his political views.