4 ms·

This is really disappointing. I can see how, for example, a CTO role is not necessarily tied to a person's political and philosophical outlook. I think it's pr

by Udo 13y ago

This is really disappointing. I can see how, for example, a CTO role is not necessarily tied to a person's political and philosophical outlook. I think it's productive to actually disregard a person's political and religious views when working with them on tech matters. However, with CEOs it's an entirely different ballgame. For better or worse, the CEOs personality is the company's personality. A promotion to CEO carries with it an endorsement of the whole person, there is really no way to spin it as if his personal views are not connected to his professional ones. In this case it's especially jarring given Mozilla's role and mission.

mst 13y ago
If a CEO brings his politics to work and priviliges them over the good of the company, he's a bad CEO whether I agree with his politics or not. If he doesn't, I don't see how it matters.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  If the CEOs politics are public, they follow him into the office whether he wants them to or not. It's one of the (many) burdens of leadership.
kevingadd 13y ago
I don't think you can argue that a CEO's entire life is within the purview of a company's directors; that is a double-edged sword that can equally harm the diverse and the majority. Private, personally held beliefs that don't enter the workplace simply shouldn't be a consideration in hiring and promotion choices, whether it's your faith, your sexual orientation, or something else. Ultimately the only way in which this entered the Mozilla sphere is the requirement that all donations have an individual's employer attached; other than that there is literally no connection. None of Eich's actions or behavior in his role at Mozilla has ever set a bad example for others or caused harm to LGBTQ individuals, as far as I know. I'd love to see counterexamples. His personality and behavior were always aligned with Mozilla as a whole being a welcoming and diverse organization. I say this as someone who felt completely welcome there (and sat at a desk next to Eich for months) and had many LGBTQ coworkers who seemed welcome in the workplace as well. On occasions where hostile or unacceptable personal views did enter the workplace, these issues were promptly addressed by management.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  "Private, personally held beliefs" Personally held, yes. But private? Hardly. Indeed, that's the problem. He made his personal beliefs very, very public. That would be less problematic if he wasn't blocking the basic rights of others. But he was. After all, what we're talking about is carving out a legal exception to the 14th Amendment. What next? Canceling women's right to vote? Re-banning interracial marriage? Seriously, basic legal equality is one of the fundamental ground rules that makes a democracy work. Attacking that is fairly high on the list of unforgivable sins.
  - kevingadd 13y ago
    They're only public because of a legal requirement that all political donations have your name and employer attached. He never publicized it.
    - jowiar 13y ago
      Spending money to get others to publicize a position for you? That's a funny way to "never publicize it".
waterlesscloud 13y ago
Some (most?) people are entirely capable of separating their professional views from their political views. I actually find it more troubling that people believe you can't make that separation.
- ronaldx 13y ago
  I do not prefer to support a business where the direct result is that profits go towards lobbying against my human rights. I consider this a professional view on the matter - it directly relates to the running of the business. In the end, professional views are political views. If you believe you have separated those, you are naive.
  - kevingadd 13y ago
    I think what someone uses their paycheck for is their business. It'd definitely be unacceptable if Mozilla as an organization was involved in prop 8 or anything similar, but I'd bet you anything that Eich isn't the only employee of Mozilla that spends part of their paycheck on something you object to. From the other perspective, how do you think staunch conservatives feel about their business's profits going towards supporting things they find objectionable? Fairness in this regard protects everyone equally.
    - ronaldx 13y ago
      >I think what someone uses their paycheck for is their business. It's funny you should put it like this, because I think who someone falls in love with and gets married to is their business. Edited to add - the comment in reply to this contains a false quote: In no way would I seek to prevent Eich from being CEO of whatever business. I would just not financially or morally support that business if I had an alternative choice. I consider that an essential part of equality - I have a right to support businesses that I choose and I prefer to exercise that right with some respect toward the moral and ethical consequences.
      - kevingadd 13y ago
ElComradio 13y ago
Do you see a difference between CEOs and presidents on this? Seems there is a large overlap between those who have no problem with e.g. Clinton's dalliances and those decrying this appointment.
- jowiar 13y ago
  Here are the differences: I don't care who Bill Clinton chooses to spend the night with. I do care who Bill Clinton campaigns to have the right to marry (and have definitely criticized him re: DOMA). I don't care who Brendan Eich chooses to spend the night with. I do care who Brendan Eich works to get the state of California to say I (or his employees) have the right to marry.
gojomo 13y ago
the CEOs personality is the company's personality Only in some organizations, driven by strong CEO personalities. In other orgs, the CEO fades to the background for maximum effectiveness. Mozilla seems more like the latter. A promotion to CEO carries with it an endorsement of the whole person I don't see that at all. It's not "monarch" or "mascot" or "most popular". It's lead administrator, with a specific set of duties that doesn't involve much (if any) electoral politicking, nor involvement in the details of employees' lives. it's especially jarring given Mozilla's role and mission Mozilla has a worldwide mission well-captured by the 'manifesto' here: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ People around the world have far more diverse perspectives on how marriage should work than what's preferred in SF, or other techie/urban wealthy-world communities. People ought to be able to collaborate on the Mozilla mission, in any particular staff or volunteer role, without an x-ray into their stances on other things, as expressed with their own time and money. Also, privacy is big part of the Mozilla mission, and privacy is multifaceted. It's not just keeping things secret, but keeping things separate by convention: agreeing not to look, and not to act on, things people do in other spheres-of-life. Such a practice isn't just polite, it's also practical. We get bigger and better organizations, and cities, and nations when vastly-different people can "agree to disagree", confine their controversies to specific bounded forums, and cooperate maximally everywhere else.
magicalist 13y ago
> However, with CEOs it's an entirely different ballgame. For better or worse, the CEOs personality is the company's personality. A promotion to CEO carries with it an endorsement of the whole person, there is really no way to spin it as if his personal views are not connected to his professional ones. In this case it's especially jarring given Mozilla's role and mission. This is reallly overreaching. 99%+ of the people on here could not have told you who Gary Kovacs was before reading articles today, and still couldn't tell you who John Lilly or Mitchell Baker are. So the arguments for the "public face of the company" that have popped up today as justification for why random internet guy #7's opinion on someone is important really don't hold much water. It's fine to have an opinion and to express it, but it's just the insistence on the importance of that opinion that feels disingenuous. But really, the proof is in the pudding. Nothing in the past has suggested that the work environment at Mozilla will suddenly grow toxic with this change, nor will there be a sudden change in the causes they advocate for or the larger community they foster. It is possible that these things will change for the worse, but that's already a possibility, and we have tools and a whole lot of people who love Mozilla to keep an eye on it, ready to help out if needed.

by Udo 13y ago

mst 13y ago

If a CEO brings his politics to work and priviliges them over the good of the company, he's a bad CEO whether I agree with his politics or not. If he doesn't, I don't see how it matters.

alexqgb 13y ago
If the CEOs politics are public, they follow him into the office whether he wants them to or not. It's one of the (many) burdens of leadership.

kevingadd 13y ago

I don't think you can argue that a CEO's entire life is within the purview of a company's directors; that is a double-edged sword that can equally harm the diverse and the majority. Private, personally held beliefs that don't enter the workplace simply shouldn't be a consideration in hiring and promotion choices, whether it's your faith, your sexual orientation, or something else. Ultimately the only way in which this entered the Mozilla sphere is the requirement that all donations have an individual's employer attached; other than that there is literally no connection. None of Eich's actions or behavior in his role at Mozilla has ever set a bad example for others or caused harm to LGBTQ individuals, as far as I know. I'd love to see counterexamples. His personality and behavior were always aligned with Mozilla as a whole being a welcoming and diverse organization. I say this as someone who felt completely welcome there (and sat at a desk next to Eich for months) and had many LGBTQ coworkers who seemed welcome in the workplace as well. On occasions where hostile or unacceptable personal views did enter the workplace, these issues were promptly addressed by management.

alexqgb 13y ago
"Private, personally held beliefs" Personally held, yes. But private? Hardly. Indeed, that's the problem. He made his personal beliefs very, very public. That would be less problematic if he wasn't blocking the basic rights of others. But he was. After all, what we're talking about is carving out a legal exception to the 14th Amendment. What next? Canceling women's right to vote? Re-banning interracial marriage? Seriously, basic legal equality is one of the fundamental ground rules that makes a democracy work. Attacking that is fairly high on the list of unforgivable sins.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  They're only public because of a legal requirement that all political donations have your name and employer attached. He never publicized it.
  - jowiar 13y ago
    Spending money to get others to publicize a position for you? That's a funny way to "never publicize it".

waterlesscloud 13y ago

Some (most?) people are entirely capable of separating their professional views from their political views. I actually find it more troubling that people believe you can't make that separation.

ronaldx 13y ago
I do not prefer to support a business where the direct result is that profits go towards lobbying against my human rights. I consider this a professional view on the matter - it directly relates to the running of the business. In the end, professional views are political views. If you believe you have separated those, you are naive.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  I think what someone uses their paycheck for is their business. It'd definitely be unacceptable if Mozilla as an organization was involved in prop 8 or anything similar, but I'd bet you anything that Eich isn't the only employee of Mozilla that spends part of their paycheck on something you object to. From the other perspective, how do you think staunch conservatives feel about their business's profits going towards supporting things they find objectionable? Fairness in this regard protects everyone equally.
  - ronaldx 13y ago
    >I think what someone uses their paycheck for is their business. It's funny you should put it like this, because I think who someone falls in love with and gets married to is their business. Edited to add - the comment in reply to this contains a false quote: In no way would I seek to prevent Eich from being CEO of whatever business. I would just not financially or morally support that business if I had an alternative choice. I consider that an essential part of equality - I have a right to support businesses that I choose and I prefer to exercise that right with some respect toward the moral and ethical consequences.
    - kevingadd 13y ago

ElComradio 13y ago

Do you see a difference between CEOs and presidents on this? Seems there is a large overlap between those who have no problem with e.g. Clinton's dalliances and those decrying this appointment.

jowiar 13y ago
Here are the differences: I don't care who Bill Clinton chooses to spend the night with. I do care who Bill Clinton campaigns to have the right to marry (and have definitely criticized him re: DOMA). I don't care who Brendan Eich chooses to spend the night with. I do care who Brendan Eich works to get the state of California to say I (or his employees) have the right to marry.

gojomo 13y ago

the CEOs personality is the company's personality Only in some organizations, driven by strong CEO personalities. In other orgs, the CEO fades to the background for maximum effectiveness. Mozilla seems more like the latter. A promotion to CEO carries with it an endorsement of the whole person I don't see that at all. It's not "monarch" or "mascot" or "most popular". It's lead administrator, with a specific set of duties that doesn't involve much (if any) electoral politicking, nor involvement in the details of employees' lives. it's especially jarring given Mozilla's role and mission Mozilla has a worldwide mission well-captured by the 'manifesto' here: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ People around the world have far more diverse perspectives on how marriage should work than what's preferred in SF, or other techie/urban wealthy-world communities. People ought to be able to collaborate on the Mozilla mission, in any particular staff or volunteer role, without an x-ray into their stances on other things, as expressed with their own time and money. Also, privacy is big part of the Mozilla mission, and privacy is multifaceted. It's not just keeping things secret, but keeping things separate by convention: agreeing not to look, and not to act on, things people do in other spheres-of-life. Such a practice isn't just polite, it's also practical. We get bigger and better organizations, and cities, and nations when vastly-different people can "agree to disagree", confine their controversies to specific bounded forums, and cooperate maximally everywhere else.

magicalist 13y ago

> However, with CEOs it's an entirely different ballgame. For better or worse, the CEOs personality is the company's personality. A promotion to CEO carries with it an endorsement of the whole person, there is really no way to spin it as if his personal views are not connected to his professional ones. In this case it's especially jarring given Mozilla's role and mission. This is reallly overreaching. 99%+ of the people on here could not have told you who Gary Kovacs was before reading articles today, and still couldn't tell you who John Lilly or Mitchell Baker are. So the arguments for the "public face of the company" that have popped up today as justification for why random internet guy #7's opinion on someone is important really don't hold much water. It's fine to have an opinion and to express it, but it's just the insistence on the importance of that opinion that feels disingenuous. But really, the proof is in the pudding. Nothing in the past has suggested that the work environment at Mozilla will suddenly grow toxic with this change, nor will there be a sudden change in the causes they advocate for or the larger community they foster. It is possible that these things will change for the worse, but that's already a possibility, and we have tools and a whole lot of people who love Mozilla to keep an eye on it, ready to help out if needed.