5 ms·

If this were any other company I don't think this would turn any heads. However, much of Mozilla's ethos and community support is built on ethical rather than c

by ender7 13y ago

If this were any other company I don't think this would turn any heads. However, much of Mozilla's ethos and community support is built on ethical rather than capitalistic foundations. It's hard to reconcile thoughts on a company that seems to so value freedom in some areas but not in others [1]. [1] Inferring what Mozilla values based on the opinions of its CEO is not particularly fair, but then again I'm not sure it's unfair either.

anaphor 13y ago
Even if Mozilla started actively discriminating against people and campaigning against minority rights I would have no problem taking the code and starting a forked version. IMO that's what's so great about FLOSS, if you disagree with how something is managed you can ignore the people who created it and start your own version along with other people who agree. So I wouldn't really be worried about the current state of affairs. If people want to boycott then they can do that, but I doubt it will have much effect unless Eich starts going insane, in which case Google will probably cut their funding. In that case we can all start hacking on Iceweasel and forget about it. Yay for free libre open source software!
- TheZenPsycho 13y ago
  Yes that's the fantasy. The reality is you can't just casually fork a project as big as mozilla. The only way that codebase stays even barely maintained with security bug fixes, is with its army of coders. The great thing about FLOSS is that it's POSSIBLE. The not so great thing about it is, in many cases you're probably better off just starting from scratch.
  - anaphor 13y ago
    In the hypothetical scenario that Mozilla management decides to start discriminating against gay people I think we can count on the support of many of the people who are familiar with the codebase. Would you agree?
    - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
      I find hypothetical scenarios quite challenging. I suppose it's possible the people within mozilla may pull another "mozilla" and spawn a new company made out of many of the same people to maintain its codebase. I think it's more likely Mozilla, as an organisation, would fire or enfeeble Brendan Eich before that happens. I only recently learned about the donation, so you have no idea the cognitive dissonance I have been going through. I believe that, as a champion and a leader, you can't get anyone better than Brendan Eich for the free software movement. But as a symbol, and a figurehead, the donation is really problematic. If it had never come to light, if he had never revealed his inner feelings about homosexuals, would it be a problem for mozilla with him in this role? Maybe, I doubt it though. I think he is utterly professional at keeping those things seperate and interior. On the other hand, it could very much affect his leadership abilities if he ever has to work directly with someone he knows to be gay. Or many someones. Or an entire company of someones. This is not to justify his donation. Which was a bad bad idea on his part, and bad ethically speaking too, not just because he got caught. but that I think it's not enough to discard a whole person over. But on the other hand.. can you sense my cognitive dissonance?
  - mason55 13y ago
    People probably would have said that about MySQL a few years ago
    - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
      And all it took to fork mariaDB was the support of several large corporations.
general_failure 13y ago
Agree. To me, Mozilla is much more than a company. It's more like family. It's purpose is to set a high moral ground and place values over anything else. With that in mind appointing someone whose moral standing is questionable, makes this decision hard to accept. I guess it was silly of me to imagine mozilla as something larger than life/more than a run of the mill company.
- hkphooey 13y ago
  I'm sorry, but you made a mistake of projecting your own beliefs and value system onto Mozilla. Mozilla is simply a technology organization and their mission is to promote a free and open web. It is not human rights, animal rights, or anything else. If Brendan Eich believes in a free and open web then he is the right person for the job.
  - neotek 13y ago
    He doesn't even believe in free and open marriages...
    - benjohnson 13y ago
      I don't either - I believe in governmental civil-unions for all, and the marriage ceremony (or not) of your own choosing and would allow for stricter contracts to be signed among willing parties.
wodenokoto 13y ago
I think the not in "but not in others" is over-qualifying. Saying that Mozilla does not value gay rights because of 1000 dollars, donated once, indirectly associated with Mozilla is a crazy given how much they actually spend directly on supporting the cause yearly. I'm not saying that a care package for 1.000 dollars negates Eichs contribution. But you can't say they don't value gay rights either.
- hugi 13y ago
  What type of person you choose to head your operations obviously reflects your ideals. It really doesn't matter if Mr. Eich donated 1000 dollars or a million dollars, he opposes basic human rights. And apparently Mozilla is fine with that.
  - eridius 13y ago
    He opposed basic human rights. Does Mr. Eich still feel the same now as he did when he made that donation? I haven't done any research on this topic outside of the linked Ars article, but I find it interesting that Eich's own statement[1] about his donation completely avoids talking about his motivations for the donation. He even implied that he does not feel animosity towards gay people (although what he explicitly said was that the donation does not constitute evidence of animosity). So I'm left wondering as to what Mr. Eich actually feels on the topic. Yes, he donated money to a cause that opposed basic human rights, and that's undeniably an action worthy of condemnation. But in isolation, this 6-year-old action does not prove anything about his feelings on the matter today. What matters right now is how Mr. Eich will lead Mozilla going forward, not personal acts taken 6 years ago that were not on behalf of Mozilla. [1]: https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    Gay marriage isn't a 'basic human right'. It's subscribing to a governmental institution.
    - alexqgb 13y ago
dinkumthinkum 13y ago
No, I think for any major or known company this would turn a lot of heads. Any CEO that has ties to homophobia or whatever you want to call it is going to get talked about. But, I will say given the kind of culture Mozilla seems to support, it is an odd choice.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  This is exactly what Gregg Steinhafel (Chairman, President, and CEO of Target) discovered the hard way back in 2010. http://consumerist.com/2010/08/05/target-ceo-explains-support-of-anti-gay-politician-to-employees/ http://consumerist.com/2010/08/05/target-ceo-explains-suppor...
gojomo 13y ago
Judge Mozilla on the actions of the organization, and the staff while performing their official roles. What the staff does in other spheres of life, with their own time and money, is their own concern. It's a freer society, and a more pro-freedom organization, that grants individuals the widest range of actions and opinions when away from their official responsibilities. The CEO position isn't "mascot" or "most popular" or "dear leader". (Those are cult-of-personality failure modes for a professional organization.) It's lead administrator, with specific on-the-job duties which involve essentially no electoral politicking nor meddling in employees' lives.

by ender7 13y ago

anaphor 13y ago

Even if Mozilla started actively discriminating against people and campaigning against minority rights I would have no problem taking the code and starting a forked version. IMO that's what's so great about FLOSS, if you disagree with how something is managed you can ignore the people who created it and start your own version along with other people who agree. So I wouldn't really be worried about the current state of affairs. If people want to boycott then they can do that, but I doubt it will have much effect unless Eich starts going insane, in which case Google will probably cut their funding. In that case we can all start hacking on Iceweasel and forget about it. Yay for free libre open source software!

TheZenPsycho 13y ago
Yes that's the fantasy. The reality is you can't just casually fork a project as big as mozilla. The only way that codebase stays even barely maintained with security bug fixes, is with its army of coders. The great thing about FLOSS is that it's POSSIBLE. The not so great thing about it is, in many cases you're probably better off just starting from scratch.
- anaphor 13y ago
  In the hypothetical scenario that Mozilla management decides to start discriminating against gay people I think we can count on the support of many of the people who are familiar with the codebase. Would you agree?
  - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
    I find hypothetical scenarios quite challenging. I suppose it's possible the people within mozilla may pull another "mozilla" and spawn a new company made out of many of the same people to maintain its codebase. I think it's more likely Mozilla, as an organisation, would fire or enfeeble Brendan Eich before that happens. I only recently learned about the donation, so you have no idea the cognitive dissonance I have been going through. I believe that, as a champion and a leader, you can't get anyone better than Brendan Eich for the free software movement. But as a symbol, and a figurehead, the donation is really problematic. If it had never come to light, if he had never revealed his inner feelings about homosexuals, would it be a problem for mozilla with him in this role? Maybe, I doubt it though. I think he is utterly professional at keeping those things seperate and interior. On the other hand, it could very much affect his leadership abilities if he ever has to work directly with someone he knows to be gay. Or many someones. Or an entire company of someones. This is not to justify his donation. Which was a bad bad idea on his part, and bad ethically speaking too, not just because he got caught. but that I think it's not enough to discard a whole person over. But on the other hand.. can you sense my cognitive dissonance?
- mason55 13y ago
  People probably would have said that about MySQL a few years ago
  - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
    And all it took to fork mariaDB was the support of several large corporations.

general_failure 13y ago

Agree. To me, Mozilla is much more than a company. It's more like family. It's purpose is to set a high moral ground and place values over anything else. With that in mind appointing someone whose moral standing is questionable, makes this decision hard to accept. I guess it was silly of me to imagine mozilla as something larger than life/more than a run of the mill company.

hkphooey 13y ago
I'm sorry, but you made a mistake of projecting your own beliefs and value system onto Mozilla. Mozilla is simply a technology organization and their mission is to promote a free and open web. It is not human rights, animal rights, or anything else. If Brendan Eich believes in a free and open web then he is the right person for the job.
- neotek 13y ago
  He doesn't even believe in free and open marriages...
  - benjohnson 13y ago
    I don't either - I believe in governmental civil-unions for all, and the marriage ceremony (or not) of your own choosing and would allow for stricter contracts to be signed among willing parties.

wodenokoto 13y ago

I think the not in "but not in others" is over-qualifying. Saying that Mozilla does not value gay rights because of 1000 dollars, donated once, indirectly associated with Mozilla is a crazy given how much they actually spend directly on supporting the cause yearly. I'm not saying that a care package for 1.000 dollars negates Eichs contribution. But you can't say they don't value gay rights either.

hugi 13y ago
What type of person you choose to head your operations obviously reflects your ideals. It really doesn't matter if Mr. Eich donated 1000 dollars or a million dollars, he opposes basic human rights. And apparently Mozilla is fine with that.
- eridius 13y ago
  He opposed basic human rights. Does Mr. Eich still feel the same now as he did when he made that donation? I haven't done any research on this topic outside of the linked Ars article, but I find it interesting that Eich's own statement[1] about his donation completely avoids talking about his motivations for the donation. He even implied that he does not feel animosity towards gay people (although what he explicitly said was that the donation does not constitute evidence of animosity). So I'm left wondering as to what Mr. Eich actually feels on the topic. Yes, he donated money to a cause that opposed basic human rights, and that's undeniably an action worthy of condemnation. But in isolation, this 6-year-old action does not prove anything about his feelings on the matter today. What matters right now is how Mr. Eich will lead Mozilla going forward, not personal acts taken 6 years ago that were not on behalf of Mozilla. [1]: https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  Gay marriage isn't a 'basic human right'. It's subscribing to a governmental institution.
  - alexqgb 13y ago

dinkumthinkum 13y ago

No, I think for any major or known company this would turn a lot of heads. Any CEO that has ties to homophobia or whatever you want to call it is going to get talked about. But, I will say given the kind of culture Mozilla seems to support, it is an odd choice.

alexqgb 13y ago
This is exactly what Gregg Steinhafel (Chairman, President, and CEO of Target) discovered the hard way back in 2010. http://consumerist.com/2010/08/05/target-ceo-explains-support-of-anti-gay-politician-to-employees/ http://consumerist.com/2010/08/05/target-ceo-explains-suppor...

gojomo 13y ago

Judge Mozilla on the actions of the organization, and the staff while performing their official roles. What the staff does in other spheres of life, with their own time and money, is their own concern. It's a freer society, and a more pro-freedom organization, that grants individuals the widest range of actions and opinions when away from their official responsibilities. The CEO position isn't "mascot" or "most popular" or "dear leader". (Those are cult-of-personality failure modes for a professional organization.) It's lead administrator, with specific on-the-job duties which involve essentially no electoral politicking nor meddling in employees' lives.