6 ms·

It's not really a litmus test. Mozilla is an organization that prides itself on openness and equality, on being inclusive as an organization and a culture. Thi

It's not really a litmus test. Mozilla is an organization that prides itself on openness and equality, on being inclusive as an organization and a culture. This is reflected in its products, in many different ways—all of them good, generally speaking. The CEO is the figurehead of a company or organization; they have to represent the company, establish its culture, define its vision, and so forth and so forth. Having a CEO who has a history of donating to an anti-equality campaign, an act that very strongly suggests having an unequal view of certain groups of people (LGBTQ folks in this case), does not mesh with an organization that prides itself on equality (among other things). They are pretty mutually exclusive. It was already a conflict with Eich as CTO, but at least in that position he had no say over the company culture or its policies when it comes to people, just technology. As CEO, all that changed. Additionally, by making a donation to (what is essentially) a campaign of hatred (and FUD), he took it WAY beyond a personal belief or view. Expressing your views in public or making a donation that way is an act, not merely "holding an opinion", and actions matter. His action in the form of the donation harmed the lives of thousands of people, with no justifiable cause for it. Now, there's tons of people who hold such bigoted views and even express them in the form of acts through public statements or donations, but most of the time we don't award those people with the CEO position of a major corporation. (to clarify how this is not a litmus test: while it sure can be applied that way, plenty of organizations have bigots as CEOs — see e.g. Chick-fil-A — but what’s mainly happening here is that it is simply a matter of bad judgement and people objecting to the appointment because he's unfit to lead an org like Mozilla)

davidgerard 13y ago
>The CEO is the figurehead of a company or organization; they have to represent the company, establish its culture, define its vision, and so forth and so forth. To emphasise this point - the importance of the choice in relating to the outside world - this is just in: http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/victoria/vac-gmhc-to-boycott-mozilla-13422.html http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/victoria/vac-gmhc-to-boyco... The Victorian AIDS Council and Gay Men's Health Centre, one of the most important gay charities in the state of Victoria in Australia, is boycotting Mozilla and removing Firefox from their machines. More than that, they issued a PRESS RELEASE to this effect. So the Firefox brand is becoming toxic well outside the world of disgruntled techies.
- jhonovich 13y ago
  Your evidence that the firefox brand is 'becoming toxic' consists of a gay charity in the state of Victoria in Australia....
mjn 13y ago
> They are pretty mutually exclusive. I don't disagree per se, but do you apply this generally, disqualifying people with any expressed anti-egalitarian politics from leading a pro-egalitarian organization such as Mozilla? Would you apply a "no Randians" or "no libertarians" litmus test as much as a "no Christian fundamentalists" or "no social conservatives" test? In my opinion, the economic and social equality angles are of fairly equal relevance to Mozilla's stated goals.
- KuraFire 13y ago
  I agree that it can quickly become murky with certain things. As I said though, actions matter. Being a libertarian is a very different thing from donating $1000 to an anti-equal rights campaign. If economic and social equality angles are of fairly equal relevance, then Eich shouldn't be CEO, because him being CEO puts the economic angle as significantly more important than the social equality one.
  - mjn 13y ago
    > Being a libertarian is a very different thing from donating $1000 to an anti-equal rights campaign. If you mean that people should be able to think whatever thoughts they want without me conducting paparazzi-style investigations to find out what they think, sure: I'm not advocating a campaign to find everyone who owns a copy of F.A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom and ostracize them (in fact, I own one!). But how about donating $1000 to Rand Paul's campaign? I would consider that equally odious, and yet it is (unfortunately) not that uncommon in the tech community, even among fairly high-profile people with board positions. In my opinion, the right of people with congenital heart diseases to receive medical treatment is of a similar level of importance as the right of gay people to have their marriages recognized by the state—if anything, actually somewhat more urgent in its importance—but a certain sort of "yuppie liberalism", which I think exists more or less only in Silicon Valley, takes the opposite view.
    - KuraFire 13y ago
      Like I said in my original comment: there is a crucial difference between thinking harmful things, and acting on them. Actions matter. Thoughts that you keep to yourself? I don't care. Go nuts with that. (also I'm not a fan of the libertarianism in tech/SV, but that's a whole different discussion)
crassus 13y ago
As a conservative-ish person in tech, I'm glad I made the decision to hide my politics beginning a few years ago. You people are vicious. I'd love to have an open debate or conversation, but that doesn't seem to be your game. Our culture is in middle of making unprecedented changes to a core social institution that goes back into prehistory. It's going to be a messy process and some people are going to disagree. That's reasonable and shouldn't be grounds for disbarment from polite society. Let's dial back the vitriol Lastly, equality isn't an unmitigated good. We treat different people differently depending on the circumstances, and for good reason. For example, you probably don't believe that children should be able to marry, or more than two people. "Equality" isn't a magic word that wins all arguments. Personally, I raise an eyebrow when a six year old boy raised by adoptive lesbians decides he is transexual, and I feel like society may be failing that boy. But we are so drunk on the doctrine of equality that there is no stepping on the brake...
- chillingeffect 13y ago
  The vitriol is lame and so is the ratio of reaction to sustained belief, such as in the case of Oculus. Who bought them again? oh yeah, facebook. Three days ago, it was a web-wide disaster. Now, they hired some famous tech guy (unknown to me, casual gamer here) and people can't be riled anymore.
- adamc 13y ago
  No crowd's expression of political views (for any side) is to be trusted. Group-think leads to weird decision-making.
- nooron 13y ago
  Crassus, I accept your challenge to an open debate about how the government should endorse relations between consenting adults. My view as of a couple years ago, which has changed somewhat, is freely available online under my legal name, Jordan Birnholtz. I hope this provides you an adequate starting point. I will even include it here so you do not have to search: http://www.michigandaily.com/content/viewpoint-divorce-marriage http://www.michigandaily.com/content/viewpoint-divorce-marri... How would you like to structure it and over what media?
- 13y ago
AnimalMuppet 13y ago
> but what’s mainly happening here is that it is simply a matter of bad judgement ... Only if you assume either that his position is so wrong that it could not be held by a reasonable person, or that he shouldn't speak or act on his position in any public way. I consider both of those assumptions to be highly suspect. > ... and people objecting to the appointment because he's unfit to lead an org like Mozilla That is exactly using this as a litmus test.
- KuraFire 13y ago
  You can be reasonable in many aspects and behaviors of your life, and be unreasonable in some that happen to matter more to the situation at hand. I think it's pretty safe to say that thinking some of your employees are lesser human beings because they happen to not conform to your outdated view of sexuality, romance, and gender identity, is a pretty demonstrably unreasonable position.
  - defen 13y ago
    The jump from "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to "thinks gay people are lesser human beings" is absurd. This is why it's not possible to have a reasonable discussion.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

davidgerard 13y ago

>The CEO is the figurehead of a company or organization; they have to represent the company, establish its culture, define its vision, and so forth and so forth. To emphasise this point - the importance of the choice in relating to the outside world - this is just in: http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/victoria/vac-gmhc-to-boycott-mozilla-13422.html http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/victoria/vac-gmhc-to-boyco... The Victorian AIDS Council and Gay Men's Health Centre, one of the most important gay charities in the state of Victoria in Australia, is boycotting Mozilla and removing Firefox from their machines. More than that, they issued a PRESS RELEASE to this effect. So the Firefox brand is becoming toxic well outside the world of disgruntled techies.

jhonovich 13y ago
Your evidence that the firefox brand is 'becoming toxic' consists of a gay charity in the state of Victoria in Australia....

mjn 13y ago

> They are pretty mutually exclusive. I don't disagree per se, but do you apply this generally, disqualifying people with any expressed anti-egalitarian politics from leading a pro-egalitarian organization such as Mozilla? Would you apply a "no Randians" or "no libertarians" litmus test as much as a "no Christian fundamentalists" or "no social conservatives" test? In my opinion, the economic and social equality angles are of fairly equal relevance to Mozilla's stated goals.

KuraFire 13y ago
I agree that it can quickly become murky with certain things. As I said though, actions matter. Being a libertarian is a very different thing from donating $1000 to an anti-equal rights campaign. If economic and social equality angles are of fairly equal relevance, then Eich shouldn't be CEO, because him being CEO puts the economic angle as significantly more important than the social equality one.
- mjn 13y ago
  > Being a libertarian is a very different thing from donating $1000 to an anti-equal rights campaign. If you mean that people should be able to think whatever thoughts they want without me conducting paparazzi-style investigations to find out what they think, sure: I'm not advocating a campaign to find everyone who owns a copy of F.A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom and ostracize them (in fact, I own one!). But how about donating $1000 to Rand Paul's campaign? I would consider that equally odious, and yet it is (unfortunately) not that uncommon in the tech community, even among fairly high-profile people with board positions. In my opinion, the right of people with congenital heart diseases to receive medical treatment is of a similar level of importance as the right of gay people to have their marriages recognized by the state—if anything, actually somewhat more urgent in its importance—but a certain sort of "yuppie liberalism", which I think exists more or less only in Silicon Valley, takes the opposite view.
  - KuraFire 13y ago
    Like I said in my original comment: there is a crucial difference between thinking harmful things, and acting on them. Actions matter. Thoughts that you keep to yourself? I don't care. Go nuts with that. (also I'm not a fan of the libertarianism in tech/SV, but that's a whole different discussion)

crassus 13y ago

As a conservative-ish person in tech, I'm glad I made the decision to hide my politics beginning a few years ago. You people are vicious. I'd love to have an open debate or conversation, but that doesn't seem to be your game. Our culture is in middle of making unprecedented changes to a core social institution that goes back into prehistory. It's going to be a messy process and some people are going to disagree. That's reasonable and shouldn't be grounds for disbarment from polite society. Let's dial back the vitriol Lastly, equality isn't an unmitigated good. We treat different people differently depending on the circumstances, and for good reason. For example, you probably don't believe that children should be able to marry, or more than two people. "Equality" isn't a magic word that wins all arguments. Personally, I raise an eyebrow when a six year old boy raised by adoptive lesbians decides he is transexual, and I feel like society may be failing that boy. But we are so drunk on the doctrine of equality that there is no stepping on the brake...

chillingeffect 13y ago
The vitriol is lame and so is the ratio of reaction to sustained belief, such as in the case of Oculus. Who bought them again? oh yeah, facebook. Three days ago, it was a web-wide disaster. Now, they hired some famous tech guy (unknown to me, casual gamer here) and people can't be riled anymore.
adamc 13y ago
No crowd's expression of political views (for any side) is to be trusted. Group-think leads to weird decision-making.
nooron 13y ago
Crassus, I accept your challenge to an open debate about how the government should endorse relations between consenting adults. My view as of a couple years ago, which has changed somewhat, is freely available online under my legal name, Jordan Birnholtz. I hope this provides you an adequate starting point. I will even include it here so you do not have to search: http://www.michigandaily.com/content/viewpoint-divorce-marriage http://www.michigandaily.com/content/viewpoint-divorce-marri... How would you like to structure it and over what media?
13y ago

AnimalMuppet 13y ago

> but what’s mainly happening here is that it is simply a matter of bad judgement ... Only if you assume either that his position is so wrong that it could not be held by a reasonable person, or that he shouldn't speak or act on his position in any public way. I consider both of those assumptions to be highly suspect. > ... and people objecting to the appointment because he's unfit to lead an org like Mozilla That is exactly using this as a litmus test.

KuraFire 13y ago
You can be reasonable in many aspects and behaviors of your life, and be unreasonable in some that happen to matter more to the situation at hand. I think it's pretty safe to say that thinking some of your employees are lesser human beings because they happen to not conform to your outdated view of sexuality, romance, and gender identity, is a pretty demonstrably unreasonable position.
- defen 13y ago
  The jump from "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to "thinks gay people are lesser human beings" is absurd. This is why it's not possible to have a reasonable discussion.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]