10 ms·

His position as CEO (as opposed to CTO or whatever it was before) changes things. Many companies, for example, offer spousal benefits to their LGBT employees'

His position as CEO (as opposed to CTO or whatever it was before) changes things. Many companies, for example, offer spousal benefits to their LGBT employees' partners even in states where gay marriage isn't legal and they're not required to so by law. That the CEO doesn't believe LGBT people are entitled to the equal benefits as compared to straight people may predict the likelihood of such an organization to take enact such policies, or maintain them if they already exist. It also may not, but as a gay person, were I a current or prospective employee of Mozilla, this would give me pause. Even leaving aside whether "hate," "homophobic," etc., are appropriate here, there are potential practical implications here, and the insistence that this is a private political matter that has no impact on his professional life is problematic.

mbrubeck 13y ago
For the record, Mozilla does provide employee benefits that cover same-sex domestic partners, and I would be shocked if any CEO attempted to change this. (I am a Mozilla employee.) The Mozilla community is governed by participation guidelines that state: "support for exclusionary practices must not be carried into Mozilla activities," and "support for exclusionary practices in non-Mozilla activities should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces." http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/participation/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/parti... UPDATE: In a meeting with Mozilla staff this morning, Brendan reiterated that he was involved in the creation of that code of conduct, and supports it 100%. He also specifically said that he should be held accountable to it, and that it's important for those in positions of power to be accountable to those with less power.
- Argorak 13y ago
  It would have been nice if he also addressed that issue in this message instead of a staff meeting. I mean, like, there is literally a world watching (geographically, not necessarily when it comes to population).
  - mbrubeck 13y ago
    We (the staff) asked for a public statement of some sort, and he seemed open to that.
    - Argorak 13y ago
      There is a difference between a statement someone got asked for or an immediate statement (even a short one like: "I acknowledge that some people in the developer community have issues with this decision because of my donation to prop8, an issue I will address soon"). The current state of things shows that he didn't feel like this needs to be addressed by himself.
    - swalling 13y ago
      That would be welcome to hear, as a Mozilla user and someone who wants to trust the org to stand for inclusive, humanist values in Internet technology.
    - hkphooey 13y ago
      Wow, so every CEO should be be asked to state their position on social issues? What are staff going to do if they don't like the answers? Quit? Strike?
      - Argorak 13y ago
        Mozilla is a non-profit that takes moral stances. So their CEO has to embody those values as well.
      - jowiar 13y ago
        As a policy, no. But when they've taken a public position that implies they consider some employees to be less equal than others, yes. Anything should of "I was wrong" implies he is not fit to lead a diverse organization.
        chc 13y ago
        He hasn't taken a public position. He's pretty consistently refused to speak publicly about politics at all. The only reason we know his private position is because somebody found his name in a list of private donors to a ballot initiative six years ago.
DanielStraight 13y ago
Which issues would remain private political matters? If he feels the climate change is a real danger to humanity, won't he make Mozilla more environmentally friendly? If he feels health care should be a basic right, won't he improve health benefits at Mozilla? If he feels marijuana should be legal, won't he be less likely to do drug tests for employees? Every big political issue affects real lives. Why is no one asking how Brendan Eich feels about climate change, health care and marijuana before deciding if he is fit for the job? I'm not trying to support either side on homosexual marriage. I just think we need to ask the question: Why is someone an extreme, irrational, homophobic bigot (all quotes from this HN thread) if they give money to a political cause opposing it but we don't even care how they feel about health care, or climate change, or marijuana, or abortion, or really just about any other political issue that affects people's lives?
- JohnBooty 13y ago
  Why is no one asking how Brendan Eich feels about climate change, health care and marijuana before deciding if he is fit for the job? It's because (correct me if I'm wrong) he hasn't spoken publicly about those causes, nor funded them. Also, many wrongs don't make a right. It's a large and common fallacy to suggest there's anything incorrect about questioning his views on human rights simply because his views on (for example) the environment haven't been questioned.
  - bzbarsky 13y ago
    You have no idea whether he's funded those causes. The only reason you know about Prop 8 is because the full list of donors to both sides was posted and everyone started looking at it. That's not typical for political donations. As far as I can tell, campaign donation recipients don't even have to publicly report donations of less than $1000 in California. Of course from what I can tell, he also hasn't spoken publicly about the particular issue at hand, except to the extent that people asked him direct questions about it based on the abovementioned public list of donations. I agree that the issue of climate change is a complete non-sequitur here, though.
    - 13y ago
chc 13y ago
Many people who oppose gay marriage simply have a deep-seated attachment to the word "marriage" and do not actually harbor ill will toward gays or wish to deprive them of any benefits. I personally am all for gay marriage, but I have many friends and family members who fall into the group I'm talking about here. They don't want to see gay people put out at all; they just aren't ready to strip the word "marriage" of the religious associations it holds for them.
- alxndr 13y ago
  > they just aren't ready to strip the word "marriage" of the religious associations it holds for them. They haven't been to Vegas, have they?
  - chc 13y ago
    I agree that it doesn't seem like an entirely rational viewpoint. It's a very deeply personal thing for them. I'm just saying that their opposition to "gay marriage" doesn't necessarily mean they bear animosity toward gay people.
    - alxndr 13y ago
      When someone says to me "I oppose gay marriage but I have no animosity towards gay people", I hear "I am unable to recognize my own animosity towards gay people".* * I suppose that doesn't hold for the abolish-all-marriage or separate-legal-and-religious-marriage folks.
      - chc 13y ago
        What I'm saying is that, if you talk to them, a surprising number of these people actually are essentially separate-legal-and-religious-marriage proponents. It's not that they want to deprive gay people of anything — they just have a religious act called "marriage" that is between a man and a woman and they feel like somebody is trying to take that away from them. They are fine with a secular institution that is open to gays and is identical to the legal concept of marriage as it exists today — they just don't want it getting mixed up with a religious institution that is very dear to them. (I'm not saying that everyone who supported Prop. 8 is this way either. Some of them really are hateful folk — but not all of them. What I'm saying is just that if you think everyone who supported Prop. 8 did so because they are spiteful toward gays, you are painting with way too broad a brush. It's a diverse bunch.)

mbrubeck 13y ago

For the record, Mozilla does provide employee benefits that cover same-sex domestic partners, and I would be shocked if any CEO attempted to change this. (I am a Mozilla employee.) The Mozilla community is governed by participation guidelines that state: "support for exclusionary practices must not be carried into Mozilla activities," and "support for exclusionary practices in non-Mozilla activities should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces." http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/participation/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/parti... UPDATE: In a meeting with Mozilla staff this morning, Brendan reiterated that he was involved in the creation of that code of conduct, and supports it 100%. He also specifically said that he should be held accountable to it, and that it's important for those in positions of power to be accountable to those with less power.

Argorak 13y ago
It would have been nice if he also addressed that issue in this message instead of a staff meeting. I mean, like, there is literally a world watching (geographically, not necessarily when it comes to population).
- mbrubeck 13y ago
  We (the staff) asked for a public statement of some sort, and he seemed open to that.
  - Argorak 13y ago
    There is a difference between a statement someone got asked for or an immediate statement (even a short one like: "I acknowledge that some people in the developer community have issues with this decision because of my donation to prop8, an issue I will address soon"). The current state of things shows that he didn't feel like this needs to be addressed by himself.
  - swalling 13y ago
    That would be welcome to hear, as a Mozilla user and someone who wants to trust the org to stand for inclusive, humanist values in Internet technology.
  - hkphooey 13y ago
    Wow, so every CEO should be be asked to state their position on social issues? What are staff going to do if they don't like the answers? Quit? Strike?
    - Argorak 13y ago
      Mozilla is a non-profit that takes moral stances. So their CEO has to embody those values as well.
    - jowiar 13y ago
      As a policy, no. But when they've taken a public position that implies they consider some employees to be less equal than others, yes. Anything should of "I was wrong" implies he is not fit to lead a diverse organization.
      - chc 13y ago
        He hasn't taken a public position. He's pretty consistently refused to speak publicly about politics at all. The only reason we know his private position is because somebody found his name in a list of private donors to a ballot initiative six years ago.

DanielStraight 13y ago

Which issues would remain private political matters? If he feels the climate change is a real danger to humanity, won't he make Mozilla more environmentally friendly? If he feels health care should be a basic right, won't he improve health benefits at Mozilla? If he feels marijuana should be legal, won't he be less likely to do drug tests for employees? Every big political issue affects real lives. Why is no one asking how Brendan Eich feels about climate change, health care and marijuana before deciding if he is fit for the job? I'm not trying to support either side on homosexual marriage. I just think we need to ask the question: Why is someone an extreme, irrational, homophobic bigot (all quotes from this HN thread) if they give money to a political cause opposing it but we don't even care how they feel about health care, or climate change, or marijuana, or abortion, or really just about any other political issue that affects people's lives?

JohnBooty 13y ago
Why is no one asking how Brendan Eich feels about climate change, health care and marijuana before deciding if he is fit for the job? It's because (correct me if I'm wrong) he hasn't spoken publicly about those causes, nor funded them. Also, many wrongs don't make a right. It's a large and common fallacy to suggest there's anything incorrect about questioning his views on human rights simply because his views on (for example) the environment haven't been questioned.
- bzbarsky 13y ago
  You have no idea whether he's funded those causes. The only reason you know about Prop 8 is because the full list of donors to both sides was posted and everyone started looking at it. That's not typical for political donations. As far as I can tell, campaign donation recipients don't even have to publicly report donations of less than $1000 in California. Of course from what I can tell, he also hasn't spoken publicly about the particular issue at hand, except to the extent that people asked him direct questions about it based on the abovementioned public list of donations. I agree that the issue of climate change is a complete non-sequitur here, though.
  - 13y ago

chc 13y ago

Many people who oppose gay marriage simply have a deep-seated attachment to the word "marriage" and do not actually harbor ill will toward gays or wish to deprive them of any benefits. I personally am all for gay marriage, but I have many friends and family members who fall into the group I'm talking about here. They don't want to see gay people put out at all; they just aren't ready to strip the word "marriage" of the religious associations it holds for them.

alxndr 13y ago
> they just aren't ready to strip the word "marriage" of the religious associations it holds for them. They haven't been to Vegas, have they?
- chc 13y ago
  I agree that it doesn't seem like an entirely rational viewpoint. It's a very deeply personal thing for them. I'm just saying that their opposition to "gay marriage" doesn't necessarily mean they bear animosity toward gay people.
  - alxndr 13y ago
    When someone says to me "I oppose gay marriage but I have no animosity towards gay people", I hear "I am unable to recognize my own animosity towards gay people".* * I suppose that doesn't hold for the abolish-all-marriage or separate-legal-and-religious-marriage folks.
    - chc 13y ago
      What I'm saying is that, if you talk to them, a surprising number of these people actually are essentially separate-legal-and-religious-marriage proponents. It's not that they want to deprive gay people of anything — they just have a religious act called "marriage" that is between a man and a woman and they feel like somebody is trying to take that away from them. They are fine with a secular institution that is open to gays and is identical to the legal concept of marriage as it exists today — they just don't want it getting mixed up with a religious institution that is very dear to them. (I'm not saying that everyone who supported Prop. 8 is this way either. Some of them really are hateful folk — but not all of them. What I'm saying is just that if you think everyone who supported Prop. 8 did so because they are spiteful toward gays, you are painting with way too broad a brush. It's a diverse bunch.)