5 ms·

"[Brendan] Eich didn't lose the [Mozilla] CEO's job for his Prop-8 donation."

32 points by Vinnl 3y ago

incomingpain 3y ago
So he didnt resign over this donation, it was an unnamed gay couple flexing their power due to their donations? https://web.archive.org/web/20190526144926/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26868536 https://web.archive.org/web/20190526144926/https://www.bbc.c... >He lost his job because he made a bet that he was more important than the possible end of Mozilla and he lost that bet. I'm not sure how anything said in this thread counters what is rather well established publicly. Ultimately as well, firefox is at about 2% market share right now. Has he lost that bet really?
- guardiangod 3y ago
  Exactly. Can you imagine swapping the name from Mozilla to Google, and donors to advertisers? People would call bloody murder on Google. Google is too big and is a corporation? What if this happened to Google back in 2001? Would people still trust Google as the webs search engine? Edit: and the post is gone from the front page. No controversial topic folks.
  - Affric 3y ago
    Yep, you have pretty clearly outlined that Mozilla in the late 2010s when it’s underperforming and the CEO is blowing up a donor relationship is very different to upstart Google in 2001 blowing up relationships with advertisers.
    - BrendanEich 3y ago
      Except the "mid 2010s" (not "late") story is made up b.s. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40072908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40072908
      - Affric 3y ago
        I realise that you're probably not going to read this but that was a glorious response. Thank you for sharing your reply with me.
- sp332 3y ago
  Yeah, but he had an out which was just an apology and a commitment to do better. That's not an unreasonable ask when employees are worried about their boss being politically and actively opposed to their marriages. Edit: The version of this where everyone stuck to their principles without compromise or "exerting pressure" was the investors pulling out entirely because the CEO was actively trying to make their marriage illegal.
donatj 3y ago
So he wasn’t fired because he donated, he was fired because he refused to apologize and presumably lie and say it was a mistake? That’s the same thing with more steps.
- safety1st 3y ago
  Right I'm not sure why this guy is blaming Brendan Eich for what sounds like both an ethics and business problem at Mozilla. If a single donor can bully your CTO out of the door over something unrelated to your mission you are a shitty organization. I would do the same thing Eich did in that position. I don't agree with his opinion but I respect his right to hold it in an open society. Just another of Mozilla leadership's many bad calls over the years
  - wredcoll 3y ago
    So I see this type of argument come up a lot and I'm curious about the logic. Why do you "respect his right" to donate to his cause (prop 8) you don't respect the other person's right to remove him as ceo?
    - vetinari 3y ago
      Is Mozilla Foundation political activist organization? When you donate to MF, you do that in order to further MF mission. Political activism should not be that[1]. When Eich donated to his cause, he did to organization that had the cause in it's mission; he did not set additional condition (e.g.: fire these people, because I don't like some aspect of their look and they refuse to change). [1] Now, interesting thing would be to know, how many people didn't donate to MF since they turned into political activist organization.
      - _fnkp 3y ago
        Mozila is not a political organization but someone in a position of power took an action that hurt some big donors. Those donors are well withing their right to stop donating after that. But since they believe in the foundation mission, despite the actions from the leadership, they looked for an compromise that Eich accepted (apologizing) and then refused to fulfill his end (the real big problem). At this point there was no more compromise, either Eich is out or the donors are and Mozilla does not have the luxury of losing donors, most of their money may come from Google but for then every penny counts. This was not political activism by Mozilla, it was choosing between a rock and a hard place, either losing a big chunk of money or loosing the CEO and making some irrelevant people unhappy, the best decision is very clear to me, CEO is easy to find a replacement, money not so much and 99% of the people complaining are not either. This was political activism by the donors and they are totally within their right to do it with their money.
blindriver 3y ago
The thing I’m most shocked about is how many ex Mozilla employees are on Mastodon.
dingnuts 3y ago
>The plan was that Eich make an announcement, apologizing for his "mistake" and making some public-benefit commitment about inclusivity, importance of diversity, etc. I disagree with Eich's vote but the idea that they were going to force him to make this kind of statement is shocking and reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution. I would have told the Board to pound sand. Sadly this also explains Mozilla's shift to progressive activism from a focus on software, and it explains why they don't matter anymore. I still use Firefox, because the alternative is Chrome, but this is what happens when ideological uniformity irrelevant to the mission of an organization is enforced on it. It's the opposite of diversity. You will create a culture of yes-men and drive yourselves into obscurity with short-sighted goals that do not further the mission of the organization, which is exactly what has happened to Mozilla. DEI types beware.
- foldr 3y ago
  There's never been any society ever where people in leadership positions couldn't lose those positions for doing dumb and/or controversial things. Comparing this to the Cultural Revolution (with its death toll of 1-2 million people) is completely wild.
  - infamia 3y ago
    Eich's position was exactly the same as Obama and Hillary Clinton on the issue, so calling it "dumb and/or controversial" isn't grounded in reality. The controversial opinion and actions belonged to the Board and certain employees.
    - foldr 3y ago
      Obama opposed Proposition 8 [1]. I'm not sure about Hilary, but Bill also opposed it [2]. So no, Eich's position was not the same. His position was that special legislation needed to be passed to take away rights from LGBTQ Californians. Proposition 8 was very obviously a controversial issue at the time. [1] https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-ban-on-gay-marriage-3278328.php https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-b... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20081104193633/http:/www.noonprop8.com/headlines/president-bill-clinton-asks-california-voters-to-vote-no-on-proposition-8/ https://web.archive.org/web/20081104193633/http:/www.noonpro...
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
Related: Marc Andreessen: I regret not doing more to support and defend Brendan Eich https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40038020 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40038020
based-nerd 3y ago
LOL. I was quite familiar with Mozilla internally back then. Mozilla engineering up until b2g was like herding cats. These whiners crack me up. The donors mentioned don’t come close to the google money spigot that paid for everything Eich was kicked to the curb for not passing a woke test Mozilla was doomed once they started throwing everything at FxOS Laughable that they thought they could compete based on feelings and fairy dust
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
BrendanEich 3y ago
Some of my replies to posts in mhoye's thread: https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290176700870060 https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290176700870060 https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290200661489901 https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290200661489901 https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290231024277416 https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290231024277416 https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290256068155685 https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290256068155685 https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290293068878358 https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290293068878358

32 points by Vinnl 3y ago

So he didnt resign over this donation, it was an unnamed gay couple flexing their power due to their donations? https://web.archive.org/web/20190526144926/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26868536 https://web.archive.org/web/20190526144926/https://www.bbc.c... >He lost his job because he made a bet that he was more important than the possible end of Mozilla and he lost that bet. I'm not sure how anything said in this thread counters what is rather well established publicly. Ultimately as well, firefox is at about 2% market share right now. Has he lost that bet really?

guardiangod 3y ago
Exactly. Can you imagine swapping the name from Mozilla to Google, and donors to advertisers? People would call bloody murder on Google. Google is too big and is a corporation? What if this happened to Google back in 2001? Would people still trust Google as the webs search engine? Edit: and the post is gone from the front page. No controversial topic folks.
- Affric 3y ago
  Yep, you have pretty clearly outlined that Mozilla in the late 2010s when it’s underperforming and the CEO is blowing up a donor relationship is very different to upstart Google in 2001 blowing up relationships with advertisers.
  - BrendanEich 3y ago
    Except the "mid 2010s" (not "late") story is made up b.s. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40072908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40072908
    - Affric 3y ago
      I realise that you're probably not going to read this but that was a glorious response. Thank you for sharing your reply with me.
sp332 3y ago
Yeah, but he had an out which was just an apology and a commitment to do better. That's not an unreasonable ask when employees are worried about their boss being politically and actively opposed to their marriages. Edit: The version of this where everyone stuck to their principles without compromise or "exerting pressure" was the investors pulling out entirely because the CEO was actively trying to make their marriage illegal.

donatj 3y ago

So he wasn’t fired because he donated, he was fired because he refused to apologize and presumably lie and say it was a mistake? That’s the same thing with more steps.

safety1st 3y ago
Right I'm not sure why this guy is blaming Brendan Eich for what sounds like both an ethics and business problem at Mozilla. If a single donor can bully your CTO out of the door over something unrelated to your mission you are a shitty organization. I would do the same thing Eich did in that position. I don't agree with his opinion but I respect his right to hold it in an open society. Just another of Mozilla leadership's many bad calls over the years
- wredcoll 3y ago
  So I see this type of argument come up a lot and I'm curious about the logic. Why do you "respect his right" to donate to his cause (prop 8) you don't respect the other person's right to remove him as ceo?
  - vetinari 3y ago
    Is Mozilla Foundation political activist organization? When you donate to MF, you do that in order to further MF mission. Political activism should not be that[1]. When Eich donated to his cause, he did to organization that had the cause in it's mission; he did not set additional condition (e.g.: fire these people, because I don't like some aspect of their look and they refuse to change). [1] Now, interesting thing would be to know, how many people didn't donate to MF since they turned into political activist organization.
    - _fnkp 3y ago
      Mozila is not a political organization but someone in a position of power took an action that hurt some big donors. Those donors are well withing their right to stop donating after that. But since they believe in the foundation mission, despite the actions from the leadership, they looked for an compromise that Eich accepted (apologizing) and then refused to fulfill his end (the real big problem). At this point there was no more compromise, either Eich is out or the donors are and Mozilla does not have the luxury of losing donors, most of their money may come from Google but for then every penny counts. This was not political activism by Mozilla, it was choosing between a rock and a hard place, either losing a big chunk of money or loosing the CEO and making some irrelevant people unhappy, the best decision is very clear to me, CEO is easy to find a replacement, money not so much and 99% of the people complaining are not either. This was political activism by the donors and they are totally within their right to do it with their money.

blindriver 3y ago

The thing I’m most shocked about is how many ex Mozilla employees are on Mastodon.

dingnuts 3y ago

>The plan was that Eich make an announcement, apologizing for his "mistake" and making some public-benefit commitment about inclusivity, importance of diversity, etc. I disagree with Eich's vote but the idea that they were going to force him to make this kind of statement is shocking and reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution. I would have told the Board to pound sand. Sadly this also explains Mozilla's shift to progressive activism from a focus on software, and it explains why they don't matter anymore. I still use Firefox, because the alternative is Chrome, but this is what happens when ideological uniformity irrelevant to the mission of an organization is enforced on it. It's the opposite of diversity. You will create a culture of yes-men and drive yourselves into obscurity with short-sighted goals that do not further the mission of the organization, which is exactly what has happened to Mozilla. DEI types beware.

foldr 3y ago
There's never been any society ever where people in leadership positions couldn't lose those positions for doing dumb and/or controversial things. Comparing this to the Cultural Revolution (with its death toll of 1-2 million people) is completely wild.
- infamia 3y ago
  Eich's position was exactly the same as Obama and Hillary Clinton on the issue, so calling it "dumb and/or controversial" isn't grounded in reality. The controversial opinion and actions belonged to the Board and certain employees.
  - foldr 3y ago
    Obama opposed Proposition 8 [1]. I'm not sure about Hilary, but Bill also opposed it [2]. So no, Eich's position was not the same. His position was that special legislation needed to be passed to take away rights from LGBTQ Californians. Proposition 8 was very obviously a controversial issue at the time. [1] https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-ban-on-gay-marriage-3278328.php https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-b... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20081104193633/http:/www.noonprop8.com/headlines/president-bill-clinton-asks-california-voters-to-vote-no-on-proposition-8/ https://web.archive.org/web/20081104193633/http:/www.noonpro...

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

Related: Marc Andreessen: I regret not doing more to support and defend Brendan Eich https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40038020 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40038020

based-nerd 3y ago

LOL. I was quite familiar with Mozilla internally back then. Mozilla engineering up until b2g was like herding cats. These whiners crack me up. The donors mentioned don’t come close to the google money spigot that paid for everything Eich was kicked to the curb for not passing a woke test Mozilla was doomed once they started throwing everything at FxOS Laughable that they thought they could compete based on feelings and fairy dust

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

BrendanEich 3y ago

Some of my replies to posts in mhoye's thread: https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290176700870060 https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290176700870060 https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290200661489901 https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290200661489901 https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290231024277416 https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290231024277416 https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290256068155685 https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290256068155685 https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290293068878358 https://mastodon.social/@BrendanEich/112290293068878358