3 ms·

- That's a disingenuous position which is not being advocated by anybody. Mozilla are free to hire him; in turn, the community is free to object loudly about hi

- That's a disingenuous position which is not being advocated by anybody. Mozilla are free to hire him; in turn, the community is free to object loudly about his views. Asking his resignation for something that has strictly nothing to do with the job he has been chosen for is not right. The fact that Mozilla's community is asking it doesn't change that. Members of this community base their opinion only on their own ethical and/or political point of view, which makes the general opinion completely biased. Asking his resignation because of his ethical/political views makes as much sense as asking it for religious reason: people get angry about it, and most of them can't even argue about it properly (I'm saying this for all sides). There is a board for a reason: to make rational decisions based on the work they think he'll be able to do. And it seems like they think than a donation made 6 years ago didn't alter his ability to do this job... But if you really want to boycott him, you should not block Firefox browsers from visiting your site, as it's more the product of a community than a single man, but you should stop using on it the language he created (Javascript).

abraininavat 13y ago
I disagree with you, but I upvoted you because I assume you're being downvoted because people disagree with you rather than because you're not contributing to the conversation. You're failing to see a distinction that the rest of us are making. Most of us agree that, in general, a CEO (or any other person) shouldn't be asked to resign by the public based on his ethical and political viewpoints which have nothing to do with his job. We value diversity. Many of us don't agree, however, that a choice to actively contribute to a campaign to rob a whole class of persons of a right enjoyed by others is on par with a choice of political party, religion, ethical framework, etc. This person has actively worked against diversity and for exclusion, and we think that excludes a person from being welcomed in the name of diversity. You may disagree, but at least try to understand the nuance. Surely your call for diversity has some limit. There must be some line that a person can cross that disqualifies the person from the right to be welcomed. Maybe we just have different lines.

abraininavat 13y ago

I disagree with you, but I upvoted you because I assume you're being downvoted because people disagree with you rather than because you're not contributing to the conversation. You're failing to see a distinction that the rest of us are making. Most of us agree that, in general, a CEO (or any other person) shouldn't be asked to resign by the public based on his ethical and political viewpoints which have nothing to do with his job. We value diversity. Many of us don't agree, however, that a choice to actively contribute to a campaign to rob a whole class of persons of a right enjoyed by others is on par with a choice of political party, religion, ethical framework, etc. This person has actively worked against diversity and for exclusion, and we think that excludes a person from being welcomed in the name of diversity. You may disagree, but at least try to understand the nuance. Surely your call for diversity has some limit. There must be some line that a person can cross that disqualifies the person from the right to be welcomed. Maybe we just have different lines.