6 ms·

>Mozilla actually encouraged him to stay by giving him the role of CEO. He decided to step out. Sure, but for those that don't know the story, Brendan was bein

>Mozilla actually encouraged him to stay by giving him the role of CEO. He decided to step out. Sure, but for those that don't know the story, Brendan was being portrayed as being evil incarnate because of the donations (which were a perfectly legal thing to do, btw). Brendan's resignation was his way of saying "f*ck this crap, I have better stuff to do", and he showed. >they simply wouldn't have given him the job in the first place. LOL, are you aware that Brendan co-founded Mozilla? HE was the one that gave them THEIR jobs.

asddubs 4y ago
I don't think anyone questioned the legality, but you seem to be conflating that with morality. evil (to use your term) is a moral judgement, not a legal one.
- moralestapia 4y ago
  What he did wasn't immoral. Whether you agree with that or not that's a different topic, and if you disagree with that let me remind you that people have different points of view and that shouldn't be an issue. Since morality is subjective in the end, the only discussion worth having is whether or not what he did was legal, which it was.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    > What he did wasn't immoral. Whether you agree with that or not that's a different topic, and if you disagree with that let me remind you that people have different points of view and that shouldn't be an issue. > Since morality is subjective in the end, the only discussion worth having is whether or not what he did was legal, which it was. That's a philosophical point, a student's thought experiment taking the (positivist?) requirement for objectivity to a logical extreme - and it's a very incomplete experiment that takes only the first step. Reality doesn't work that way: Most information and decisions in life are subjective and we have many tools for doing it that way. Subjectivity doesn't make something arbitrary or meaningless or infinitely relative. Almost everything important is subjective, including morality.
  - asoneth 4y ago
    > What he did wasn't immoral ... Since morality is subjective I agree that morality is subjective -- what he did was immoral to some and moral to others. Similarly there are people who considered it immoral when CEOs were publicly voicing support for pro-choice policies. For a leader it probably hinges on the perspectives of the people they lead. You won't have a healthy organization if a significantly large number of people believe you are behaving immorally, especially at a nonprofit paying below-market rates.
  - jraph 4y ago
    > What he did wasn't immoral ... to you. Like you say in this very comment, morality / ethics is personal / specific to each person. If you did something legal I despise (I might even think what you did was moral, but still strongly disagree), I understand that you did something legal but still might reject the idea to have you near me or representing something I like and might employ legal means to try to get rid of you, too. By protesting for instance. I have the right to do so as long as I respect the law. The fact that what he did is legal is settled but he still decided to step out, as a consequence of people protesting against him being the CEO because of his past actions. Since legality is settled and everyone agrees about this, it's not a discussion worth having, actually. Only the rest remains. This is absolutely non-legal concerns that people don't agree on. Law does not settle everything. Legality is not sufficient for something to be moral. It might not even be necessary. Now, the rest has also been discussed at length, so it's not clear it's worth keeping discussing this neither.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      > morality / ethics is personal / specific to each person It's not. Almost all of humanity, every culture now or historical, has agreed on many of these things. Others have very wide support, including universal human rights (which include your rights). You can find many arguments supporting these things, throughout human history. Societies and much of the world agree on them (including universal human rights). Research shows evolutionary advantages and connections to these things, and that animals share them with us. Ethics and morality are not some arbitrary things we each make up.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        > > morality / ethics is personal / specific to each person > It's not. Almost all of humanity, every culture now or historical, has agreed on many of these things. What's the need for agreement if individuals are not involved? And why would agreement invalidate morality and ethics being personal?
andyjohnson0 4y ago
> Brendan was being portrayed as being evil incarnate because of the donations (which were a perfectly legal thing to do, btw). Im not sure why you posted this as it has never been suggested that his donation was illegal. The campaign against his appointment as CTO was on the basis that his financial support for proposition 8 showed him to be hostile to the protection of civil rights for some members of society, including Mozilla personnel, and that this was incompatible with his leadership role.
- infamia 4y ago
  That doesn't make any sense., and there was something else going on. Eich's position was exactly the same as the platform that Obama when he initially ran for president. Somehow that supposedly makes Eich unfit to run a company, but it is fine for Obama to be President.
  - andyjohnson0 4y ago
    Obama and Eich are both people, but the president of the USA and the CTO of Mozilla are completely different roles. It "doesn't make any sense" because the comparison is invalid.
- skeeter2020 4y ago
  >> The campaign And this really is the crux, isn't it: 1. a political campaign inside Mozilla 2. by some employees that interpreted risk that 3. his donations were an attack on what they perceived as their rights 4. and this made him unable to fulfill the role of CTO That's a whole lot of one-side conclusions to get to "he's unfit to be the CTO". No wonder he left.
  - andyjohnson0 4y ago
    What do you think "they" should have done? This was all discussed at the time: the campaign against his appointment was far from just being "inside Mozilla". And "what they perceived as their rights" are now actual civil and legal rights because US society decided that was the right thing to do.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jraph 4y ago
> are you aware that Brendan co-founded Mozilla? Yep. > HE was the one that gave them THEIR jobs. Yeah, no. Being co-founder is not everything. He was CTO back then. He pretty much didn't give them their jobs, alone anyway. And of course, to go from CTO to CEO, the board gave him the job. I don't know how that can be wrong. And in any case it does not give him any specific kind of immunity against criticism. Note that I didn't write this sentence, I'm quoting the linked article. > which were a perfectly legal thing to do, btw Of course. But legal ≠ good. Not speaking about Brendan because my opinion on this is irrelevant, but I'm sure you can find something legal that you don't like. For Brendan homosexual wedding is one example of something legal that's bad, if his opinion on this matter hasn't changed.

asddubs 4y ago

I don't think anyone questioned the legality, but you seem to be conflating that with morality. evil (to use your term) is a moral judgement, not a legal one.

moralestapia 4y ago
What he did wasn't immoral. Whether you agree with that or not that's a different topic, and if you disagree with that let me remind you that people have different points of view and that shouldn't be an issue. Since morality is subjective in the end, the only discussion worth having is whether or not what he did was legal, which it was.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > What he did wasn't immoral. Whether you agree with that or not that's a different topic, and if you disagree with that let me remind you that people have different points of view and that shouldn't be an issue. > Since morality is subjective in the end, the only discussion worth having is whether or not what he did was legal, which it was. That's a philosophical point, a student's thought experiment taking the (positivist?) requirement for objectivity to a logical extreme - and it's a very incomplete experiment that takes only the first step. Reality doesn't work that way: Most information and decisions in life are subjective and we have many tools for doing it that way. Subjectivity doesn't make something arbitrary or meaningless or infinitely relative. Almost everything important is subjective, including morality.
- asoneth 4y ago
  > What he did wasn't immoral ... Since morality is subjective I agree that morality is subjective -- what he did was immoral to some and moral to others. Similarly there are people who considered it immoral when CEOs were publicly voicing support for pro-choice policies. For a leader it probably hinges on the perspectives of the people they lead. You won't have a healthy organization if a significantly large number of people believe you are behaving immorally, especially at a nonprofit paying below-market rates.
- jraph 4y ago
  > What he did wasn't immoral ... to you. Like you say in this very comment, morality / ethics is personal / specific to each person. If you did something legal I despise (I might even think what you did was moral, but still strongly disagree), I understand that you did something legal but still might reject the idea to have you near me or representing something I like and might employ legal means to try to get rid of you, too. By protesting for instance. I have the right to do so as long as I respect the law. The fact that what he did is legal is settled but he still decided to step out, as a consequence of people protesting against him being the CEO because of his past actions. Since legality is settled and everyone agrees about this, it's not a discussion worth having, actually. Only the rest remains. This is absolutely non-legal concerns that people don't agree on. Law does not settle everything. Legality is not sufficient for something to be moral. It might not even be necessary. Now, the rest has also been discussed at length, so it's not clear it's worth keeping discussing this neither.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    > morality / ethics is personal / specific to each person It's not. Almost all of humanity, every culture now or historical, has agreed on many of these things. Others have very wide support, including universal human rights (which include your rights). You can find many arguments supporting these things, throughout human history. Societies and much of the world agree on them (including universal human rights). Research shows evolutionary advantages and connections to these things, and that animals share them with us. Ethics and morality are not some arbitrary things we each make up.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      > > morality / ethics is personal / specific to each person > It's not. Almost all of humanity, every culture now or historical, has agreed on many of these things. What's the need for agreement if individuals are not involved? And why would agreement invalidate morality and ethics being personal?

andyjohnson0 4y ago

> Brendan was being portrayed as being evil incarnate because of the donations (which were a perfectly legal thing to do, btw). Im not sure why you posted this as it has never been suggested that his donation was illegal. The campaign against his appointment as CTO was on the basis that his financial support for proposition 8 showed him to be hostile to the protection of civil rights for some members of society, including Mozilla personnel, and that this was incompatible with his leadership role.

infamia 4y ago
That doesn't make any sense., and there was something else going on. Eich's position was exactly the same as the platform that Obama when he initially ran for president. Somehow that supposedly makes Eich unfit to run a company, but it is fine for Obama to be President.
- andyjohnson0 4y ago
  Obama and Eich are both people, but the president of the USA and the CTO of Mozilla are completely different roles. It "doesn't make any sense" because the comparison is invalid.
skeeter2020 4y ago
>> The campaign And this really is the crux, isn't it: 1. a political campaign inside Mozilla 2. by some employees that interpreted risk that 3. his donations were an attack on what they perceived as their rights 4. and this made him unable to fulfill the role of CTO That's a whole lot of one-side conclusions to get to "he's unfit to be the CTO". No wonder he left.
- andyjohnson0 4y ago
  What do you think "they" should have done? This was all discussed at the time: the campaign against his appointment was far from just being "inside Mozilla". And "what they perceived as their rights" are now actual civil and legal rights because US society decided that was the right thing to do.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jraph 4y ago

> are you aware that Brendan co-founded Mozilla? Yep. > HE was the one that gave them THEIR jobs. Yeah, no. Being co-founder is not everything. He was CTO back then. He pretty much didn't give them their jobs, alone anyway. And of course, to go from CTO to CEO, the board gave him the job. I don't know how that can be wrong. And in any case it does not give him any specific kind of immunity against criticism. Note that I didn't write this sentence, I'm quoting the linked article. > which were a perfectly legal thing to do, btw Of course. But legal ≠ good. Not speaking about Brendan because my opinion on this is irrelevant, but I'm sure you can find something legal that you don't like. For Brendan homosexual wedding is one example of something legal that's bad, if his opinion on this matter hasn't changed.