6 ms·

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

by mozman 4y ago

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?
    - BrendanEich 4y ago
      I was CTO from 2005 incorporation of Mozilla Corporation. You must be thinking of CEO. FYI, I'd already run all of engineering from 2013 January on until CEO appointment, as SVP Eng + CTO.
- moralestapia 4y ago
  But organizations should be, at least I'm on that camp. Edit: Well actually, I can think of some orgs. that should be polarized by nature, like those meant to promote change. But a foundation that "works to ensure the internet remains a public resource that is open and accessible to us all" should be quite neutral on all others topics beyond that.
  - jraph 4y ago
    I think I understand this opinion, but I'm not sure this is actually possible. I don't think political neutrality really exists. The closest thing that exists is status quo and mainstream / widespread opinions / beliefs. On any subject that's not the main mission of the org, people will have any sort of opinions, on one side or another. Sometimes biased towards one of the sides depending on the mission or the actual people it attracts. (sometimes on the main mission too actually, but in this case the org is in trouble / needs to adapt the mission - it can be an existential crisis) And if for some idea, the mainstream / status quo outside the org is biased toward one side, this bias might also affect the org because the org lives in this world. Let's take an (imperfect?) example: about veganism/vegetarianism/non-vegetarianism, what is the neutral stance? If the org needs to organize a dinner, some side will need to be taken. Allowing everything to accommodate the preferences of every person is not neutral. That's the status quo however, usually. You can only have "presence of animal-based food" or "absence of animal-based food". Nothing in between. You need to pick a side, take a non neutral-decision. In the case of Brendan being rejected, people were going to be pissed either way. If he stayed, it would have pissed people who thought Brendan was not desirable as a CEO of an organization like Mozilla which is supposed to be inclusive because of his anti same-sex wedding actions. Because he left, it pissed people who thought his personal opinions should not matter. And both sides have a point, which is the hardest part.
    - themaninthedark 4y ago
      >Allowing everything to accommodate the preferences of every person is not neutral. What do you mean that is not neutral? Not being neural would be either forcing everyone to get meat with their meals or not allowing people to get meat with their meals. By allowing choice you are taking a neutral path.

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

by mozman 4y ago

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

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?
  - BrendanEich 4y ago
    I was CTO from 2005 incorporation of Mozilla Corporation. You must be thinking of CEO. FYI, I'd already run all of engineering from 2013 January on until CEO appointment, as SVP Eng + CTO.
moralestapia 4y ago
But organizations should be, at least I'm on that camp. Edit: Well actually, I can think of some orgs. that should be polarized by nature, like those meant to promote change. But a foundation that "works to ensure the internet remains a public resource that is open and accessible to us all" should be quite neutral on all others topics beyond that.
- jraph 4y ago
  I think I understand this opinion, but I'm not sure this is actually possible. I don't think political neutrality really exists. The closest thing that exists is status quo and mainstream / widespread opinions / beliefs. On any subject that's not the main mission of the org, people will have any sort of opinions, on one side or another. Sometimes biased towards one of the sides depending on the mission or the actual people it attracts. (sometimes on the main mission too actually, but in this case the org is in trouble / needs to adapt the mission - it can be an existential crisis) And if for some idea, the mainstream / status quo outside the org is biased toward one side, this bias might also affect the org because the org lives in this world. Let's take an (imperfect?) example: about veganism/vegetarianism/non-vegetarianism, what is the neutral stance? If the org needs to organize a dinner, some side will need to be taken. Allowing everything to accommodate the preferences of every person is not neutral. That's the status quo however, usually. You can only have "presence of animal-based food" or "absence of animal-based food". Nothing in between. You need to pick a side, take a non neutral-decision. In the case of Brendan being rejected, people were going to be pissed either way. If he stayed, it would have pissed people who thought Brendan was not desirable as a CEO of an organization like Mozilla which is supposed to be inclusive because of his anti same-sex wedding actions. Because he left, it pissed people who thought his personal opinions should not matter. And both sides have a point, which is the hardest part.
  - themaninthedark 4y ago
    >Allowing everything to accommodate the preferences of every person is not neutral. What do you mean that is not neutral? Not being neural would be either forcing everyone to get meat with their meals or not allowing people to get meat with their meals. By allowing choice you are taking a neutral path.