6 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    You mean because five unelected judges decided
    - pxc 4y ago
      That's a good point— gay rights are pretty precariously situated and it seems a bit premature to celebrate their status as set in stone at this point. But Democrats who run in elections and appoint judges seem to generally like being able to point to the courts as a risk, and show little interest in legally bolstering civil rights when they have the power to, so it'll probably stay as it is... until it doesn't, just like with Roe and Casey.
      - sciurus 4y ago
        Sounds like you may have missed some developments, like the Respect for Marriage Act in passed in 2022. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-congress-expected-pass-bill-protecting-same-sex-marriage-2022-12-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-congress-expected-pass-b... https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404
- jraph 4y ago
  > a political campaign inside Mozilla And outside too. I read that OKCupid invited Firefox users to switch browsers, and CREDO mobile gathered 50K signatures for a petition. So nothing specific to Mozilla in the end. > No wonder he left. He indeed wrote on his blog "under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader" and he was probably right about this.
mozman 4y ago
Is there or has there ever been any evidence that Brendan did not separate his personal views from professional views?
- jraph 4y ago
  He might have separated his personal views from his professional views. He probably did, actually. But I don't think it matters. People still didn't like it. His right to have these views, their right too. It would only have been worse if he hadn't. The world is not neutral, organizations neither.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > People still didn't like it. His right to have these views, their right too. Yes, the question here is who mixed their personal right to their views with their professional responsibilities. If Eich didn't, then it seems clear that everyone at Mozilla who objected to his appointment did. That wasn't the conversation that took place though. The "professional responsibilities" in this case was being a good steward for Mozilla's products and the vision of products that preserved digital rights for its users. Not clear what this had to do with civil rights like gay marriage.
    - andyjohnson0 4y ago
      > The "professional responsibilities" in this case was being a good steward for Mozilla's products and the vision of products that preserved digital rights for its users. Not clear what this had to do with civil rights like gay marriage. That's not all a CTO does. They also have "people" responsibilities. As the then CTO, one of Eich's professional responsibilities was to lead the tech teams and individuals at Mozilla. The belief, among a significant proportion of Mozilla's employees, that he could not be trusted to put aside his opinions on civil rights when managing people, was what led to the opposition to his appointment.
      - naasking 4y ago
        > The belief, among a significant proportion of Mozilla's employees, that he could not be trusted to put aside his opinions on civil rights when managing people A belief he couldn't be trusted based on what evidence, aside from them not liking his views on gay marriage?

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.
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  You mean because five unelected judges decided
  - pxc 4y ago
    That's a good point— gay rights are pretty precariously situated and it seems a bit premature to celebrate their status as set in stone at this point. But Democrats who run in elections and appoint judges seem to generally like being able to point to the courts as a risk, and show little interest in legally bolstering civil rights when they have the power to, so it'll probably stay as it is... until it doesn't, just like with Roe and Casey.
    - sciurus 4y ago
      Sounds like you may have missed some developments, like the Respect for Marriage Act in passed in 2022. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-congress-expected-pass-bill-protecting-same-sex-marriage-2022-12-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-congress-expected-pass-b... https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404
jraph 4y ago
> a political campaign inside Mozilla And outside too. I read that OKCupid invited Firefox users to switch browsers, and CREDO mobile gathered 50K signatures for a petition. So nothing specific to Mozilla in the end. > No wonder he left. He indeed wrote on his blog "under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader" and he was probably right about this.

mozman 4y ago

Is there or has there ever been any evidence that Brendan did not separate his personal views from professional views?

jraph 4y ago
He might have separated his personal views from his professional views. He probably did, actually. But I don't think it matters. People still didn't like it. His right to have these views, their right too. It would only have been worse if he hadn't. The world is not neutral, organizations neither.
- naasking 4y ago
  > People still didn't like it. His right to have these views, their right too. Yes, the question here is who mixed their personal right to their views with their professional responsibilities. If Eich didn't, then it seems clear that everyone at Mozilla who objected to his appointment did. That wasn't the conversation that took place though. The "professional responsibilities" in this case was being a good steward for Mozilla's products and the vision of products that preserved digital rights for its users. Not clear what this had to do with civil rights like gay marriage.
  - andyjohnson0 4y ago
    > The "professional responsibilities" in this case was being a good steward for Mozilla's products and the vision of products that preserved digital rights for its users. Not clear what this had to do with civil rights like gay marriage. That's not all a CTO does. They also have "people" responsibilities. As the then CTO, one of Eich's professional responsibilities was to lead the tech teams and individuals at Mozilla. The belief, among a significant proportion of Mozilla's employees, that he could not be trusted to put aside his opinions on civil rights when managing people, was what led to the opposition to his appointment.
    - naasking 4y ago
      > The belief, among a significant proportion of Mozilla's employees, that he could not be trusted to put aside his opinions on civil rights when managing people A belief he couldn't be trusted based on what evidence, aside from them not liking his views on gay marriage?