8 ms·

I'm not sure how I feel about this one. On the one hand, Brendan Eich had some beliefs that were against Mozilla's core values, but on the other hand we just s

by Oculus 13y ago

I'm not sure how I feel about this one. On the one hand, Brendan Eich had some beliefs that were against Mozilla's core values, but on the other hand we just showed that when a mob on the Internet wants something - they get it. It's scary because this mob has global reach, unlimited power, but isn't always right.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
smsm42 13y ago
I'm kind of confused why a software project has to have any values about gay marriage. Should they also have values about abortion, gun control, marijuana legalization, single-payer healthcare, contraceptive funding, stem-cell research, fracking? You know, we have a lot of hot button topics here and a lot of groups who would like nothing more than make national news by attaching themselves to something or somebody famous and making a nice juicy controversy. Having nothing to do with what Mozilla foundation was supposed to do, but who cares?
- bronson 13y ago
  Because the project employs gay people, some of whom would be in a position to receive marriage benefits from said project.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    So what? The project can also employ gun-owning people, marijuana-smoking people, birth-control-using people, healthcare-using people, etc. Those issues are hot issues because they interest a lot of people, and since big project employs a lot of people, it is inevitable that the intersection between people affected by the issue of the day and people working at big company is significant. And among them inevitably would be the people holding minority - or, in this case, unpopular majority opinion. If you refuse to interact with them, your circle of reference becomes very narrow indeed. Once diversity meant surrounding oneself with people different from you and learning to deal with them. Now some people understand diversity as surrounding oneself with people looking superficially different but thinking virtually the same, within very near bounds. This is just sad and wrong.
    - bronson 13y ago
      Um, the project would not give gun or marijuana benefits to its employees. Yes, government-sponsored birth control is a hot issue and many CEOs are having a hard time reconciling it. And, yes some people have quit over it. So, yes, it's similar. Being pro-diversity does not mean being morally obligated to accept racism or hate-induced views. That's pretzel logic.
      - smsm42 13y ago
        The project also doesn't give gay marriage benefits, so what's the difference? If the gay marriage ever is recognized by California or on federal level, the benefits would be automatically equalized. I'm not sure if it's possible to do that before the law is set in this regard (may be some accounting/tax issues with just giving benefits to people that the law considers strangers). >>> Being pro-diversity does not mean being morally obligated to accept racism or hate-induced views It does not mean that, of course. But it also does not mean you should try to ruin the life of everybody who disagrees with you.
        bronson 13y ago
        Yes, the project does. Quote: "Mozilla offers the best benefits I have ever had and goes out of its way to offer benefits to its employees in same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships on par with those in heterosexual marriages." The bare minimum compliance with current law is no way run a company. Great companies do more for their employees than the law requires. I don't see anyone (other than idiot internet trolls) wanting his life ruined. All I see are some pretty compelling arguments for some difficulties he will face as a CEO and a lot of anguish that this had to happen at all. If he'd just shown some empathy in that CNet interview, I wonder if things would have gone differently? It read like an engineer's response, not like a CEO. Alas.
        bronson 13y ago
        Curious, why the downvote?
        13y ago
recusancy 13y ago
Who is "this mob"?
- codyb 13y ago
  It's all of us.
- mhurron 13y ago
  People with their own opinions and beliefs apparently.
- return0 13y ago
  > We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better. So Mozilla has to "act" the way some people "expect them to act". There was not even a ballot, poll or evaluation of the man in the position. It was a pretty ridiculous move to avoid bad press. Talk about to sticking to values like meritocracy.
  - dethstar 13y ago
    It wasn't just bad press, someone here posted a link to a "biggish" organization in, I think, Australia where they were asking people to boycott Mozilla by not using it's software.
    - danudey 13y ago
      Also, OkCupid called them out on it extremely publicly.
      - JeremyMorgan 13y ago
        Yes, even though their employees have contributed far more. http://pastebin.com/ekaFQXbE http://pastebin.com/ekaFQXbE
        yohui 13y ago
amaral-herberth 13y ago
They are not right on this one. Eich was clearly persecuted politically.
- ZanyProgrammer 13y ago
  Who persecuted Eich? His detractors were merely engaging in their freedom of speech. You know, free market and all that.
  - amaral-herberth 13y ago
    I don't think so, pal. There is absolutely no evidence that Eich would be a real threat of freedom of speech inside Mozilla. He stepped down because of pression over his political views, which has nothing to do with his competence or the way he treats people.
  - Touche 13y ago
    It's about being a gracious victor. Yes, Eich was on the wrong side of history when he supported prop 8 those years ago. Yes, those who support gay marriage are "right" and history will show this. But the graceful thing to do when you're right is not to curb-stomp those who were wrong. It's not to rub it in their face. It's not to ruin their lives because they made a mistake. The graceful thing to do when you are right is to let those who were wrong to get away with it. To let them pretend like it never happened. Because "winning" history is not about destroying those who opposed you.
    - arrrg 13y ago
      Curb stomp? Rub it in their face? What are you talking about? Eich never said that he was wrong. That’s his prerogative – he can have that opinion – but I’m not sure why anyone would forgive someone who isn’t even asking for forgiveness. I’m really all for forgiving mistakes and being graceful. There is no reason to rub someone’s past mistakes in their face when they already admitted to making a mistake. Humans screw up, even CEOs. I think in general we need to be more forgiving. But Eich never asked for forgiveness, so that’s really a moot point with him. Of course, harassment is not ok, but I really can’t see a problem (and also no internet mob) in voicing your opinion (even strongly worded) and calling for a boycott.
matthewmacleod 13y ago
on the other hand we just showed that when a mob on the Internet wants something - they get it. I don't think that this follows. In this particular case, someone was promoted to a role which many felt was incompatible with his personal views; they made that known, and the person in question stepped down. That's kind of how things should work in a community enterprise. That said, I understand he's received wildly disproportionate abuse, like death threats. That's totally unacceptable, and frankly I'm surprised that anybody feels that strongly about the issue.
- angersock 13y ago
  Here's the root of the issue: "many felt was incompatible with his personal views" Who all is "many" here? People at Mozilla? People in the tech industry? People who are LGBT? Angry people on the internet with nothing better to do than troll? People who actually were directly and personally affected by Eich's actions in donating, of which there are quite few compared to the number of people weighing in on this? It's easy to have an echo-chamber hollering for blood, but let's not pretend that those voices have any automatic credibility.
  - matthewmacleod 13y ago
    People who actually were directly and personally affected by Eich's actions in donating, of which there are quite few compared to the number of people weighing in on this? Is this the case? There are a whole bunch of LGBT people working at Mozilla, and in the wider tech community. On top of that, there are families and friends of these people, who while not being personally affected can certainly legitimately object to the damage done to their close peers. I suspect that this affects more people than you are implying.
    - angersock 13y ago
      "damage done to their close peers" Again, what damage, and how does that get traced directly back to Eich? The law was repealed, marriage reinstated, and everything's fine. The system worked, so what's the issue? And a "whole bunch"? How many? Numbers? Percentage? Let us not suspect--we are in the Information Age. Google your way to success. The only number we have is $1000 from Eich to support Prop 8--that's the only number we have. Somehow that one number is enough evidence to cost the man his job, but magically nobody else has to back up their assails. Look, if the numbers for this act justify the outrage, sure, I'll recant--but that simply hasn't happened yet, and the bookkeeping is pretty shoddy.
jhchen 13y ago
Three board members did step down [1] so it's not just the internet. [1] http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/28/three-mozilla-board-members-resign-over-choice-of-new-ceo/ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/28/three-mozilla-board-m...
- blueveek 13y ago
  They didn't step down because of Brendan, but for different reasons. "The three board members ended their terms last week for a variety of reasons. Two had been planning to leave for some time, one since January and one explicitly at the end of the CEO search, regardless of the person selected." [0] http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/three-mozilla-board-members-including-two-former-ceos-step-down/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/three-mozilla-board-...
kilroy123 13y ago
This is why I think we don't truly have a democracy anymore. Instead we now have an Ochlocracy[1]. Ruled by mobs and groups of people (super pacs and multinational corporations)[2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee
- matthewmacleod 13y ago
  This could not have less to do with the situation. Mozilla is not a democracy.
return0 13y ago
For example, if the mob tomorrow decides that it's OK to give up privacy for "security", mozilla will happily have to oblige to become a state security tool. That's why strong leadership with values is needed.
- danudey 13y ago
  I don't think 'standing in the way of equality' is really the kind of values that Mozilla needs.
  - return0 13y ago
    Apparently "tolerant to opposing political opinions" is not such a value either. I presume most Mozilla users, myself included, are in favor of gay marriage, yet there is no clause that you "have to support gay marriage" to use Mozilla software. It's also obvious that if Eich ever let his political beliefs affect his decisions on software he would be fired immediately.
- ralfd 13y ago
  Ironically I think it is ultimately a privacy issue. His (small) donation shouldn't have been publicly disclosed.
crimsonalucard 13y ago
The mob is definitely an emotional child but it doesn't have anywhere near unlimited power.
conkrete 13y ago
In business the "Mob" is usually right. If the mob of people are saying they won't buy into your product, you usually conform to the mob.
- DEinspanjer 13y ago
  True, but Mozilla does not typically operate as a standard business. They have a different goal, and that goal and quite frequently be at odds with the "mob". The majority of people and certainly the political inclination of the day is taking power and freedom away from people in the context of the Web. If Mozilla went with the mob rule instead of the smaller but passionate group that feel that is wrong, it would quickly be just like every other browser vendor out there, and it wouldn't be attempting to make a difference in the web, despite whether it is the most profitable stance.
- scottmagdalein 13y ago
  In this case the "mob" that was outraged was a small, very vocal minority.
  - conkrete 13y ago
    I wasn't aware of this, they certainly were vocal enough to make it appear like a mob.
gfosco 13y ago
Unfortunately I think what this encourages is being less genuine.. hiding your personal feelings when they go against the current tide. Was the problem truly that he felt this way, or that he publicly+financially felt that way? If there was no public record of his position, there'd be no controversy. I completely disagree with his position, but I don't think shutting him up or vilifying him is the answer.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  Wecome to Corporate America.
- byuu 13y ago
  The problem is that it ceased to be his personal opinion when he donated money to and voted to strip other people of their rights (while keeping those rights for himself) under force of law. He directly contributed to preventing some of his very own employees from being able to marry in their home state of California. A right they had previously enjoyed. If he held to his own beliefs, but allowed others to have their own beliefs and live their lives how they wanted, I sincerely doubt this would have been such a big issue.
ucarion 13y ago
There are beliefs in this world that you cannot publicly hold and still expect to be taken seriously. If Eich were arguing against interracial marriage there would be very little debate about this issue; believing that humans cannot marry between races is not a belief modern society continues to respect. I think this controversy is an indication that -- to the tech community at least -- believing that discrimination based on sexual orientation is one of those illegitimate beliefs.
- ralfd 13y ago
  But Eich isn't arguing or advocating anything. All he made was to donate to a popular proposition, I mean, it did found the majority of the electorate (then). In all other comments I read from him, he says his private politic views are a private matter and I agree with him there. I also think donations of this rather small size ($1000) should not needed to be publicly disclosed.
  - shinratdr 13y ago
    What does it being popular have to do with anything? Popular bigotry is still bigotry. A donation in support of that bigotry is tantamount to bigotry. Finally, personal political views absolutely enter in to public debate when the views are held by a public figurehead that is in place to represent the ideals of an organization. This is how you change public opinion, by making it dangerous to hold these views and still be supported or taken seriously. People didn't just suddenly decide not to be racist. It took endless shaming of the people that hold those views until those views are no longer the norm, then the next generation grows up in an environment where that kind of bigotry is considered reprehensible and instead of just hiding their bigotry due to shame, they actually find it reprehensible. This is social change in action. Personal views aren't sacrosanct, and simply believing in something and having the right to say it doesn't entitle you to be tolerated or respected by those who hear it. Free speech isn't a license to say or do whatever the fuck you want without consequence. It simply protects you from government censorship or physical violence.
    - ralfd 13y ago
agapos 13y ago
"On the one hand, Brendan Eich had some beliefs that were against Mozilla's core values." Care to elaborate this? Last time I read, the Mozilla Manifeto[1] says nothing about marriage rights or anything marginally related. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/
- danudey 13y ago
  The Mozilla Manifesto should not be taken to be the total sum of what Mozilla, as an organization, believes. Their Manifesto is about how they believe the internet should behave and be treated, not how the company itself should behave and act with regards to its own employees.
  - agapos 13y ago
    "The Mozilla Manifesto should not be taken to be the total sum of what Mozilla, as an organization, believes." That's the deal. They all think differently on subjects unrelated to the Manifesto. True, there may be cases where the ratio is 99% against 1%. But it's still there.
- _t5yy 13y ago
  Exactly. Mozilla is about at the end of the day "openness" unfortunately for some people at mozilla, that means working with people who's views you might not be comfortable with. This is the whole point of working in and pushing for an open society.
  - lcfg 13y ago
    This isn't what "open society" means. In your view, what would we do with people that discriminate based on gender, or skin colour? We cannot tolerate this. Any society must strive to ensure equal rights to its members. Edit: we're not going to have this debate for every minority group. This equal rights thing is happening, whether you like it or not.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    It looks like some people's response to working with people who's views you might not be comfortable with is to get those people fired. Which is great, as long as you always hold the views which is approved by everybody and never step out of the line. Woe to you if you do.
rpearl 13y ago
You know what? great. I'm glad that there was so much political pressure that someone who does not support gay rights simply could not hold the position of CEO at a tech company. That's absolutely fantastic.
- general_failure 13y ago
  Not sure why you are getting downvoted here. Especially given that everyone was raging about it here before this happenned.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
This isn't a new thing. It's not even a recent thing. Public opinion has always been a potent force. For an organization like Mozilla I don't think it's at all surprising that public opinion has a big role in shaping who is at the helm. It's also not overly scary to me that issues of equality related to sexual orientation are now prominent enough to be a major factor in issues like the leadership of the Mozilla Organization. Indeed, personally I think it's somewhat heartening. There are, and should be, limits to how much we allow politics to influence business, but in this case we're not talking about issues of small import. This isn't about monetary policy or minimum wages, this is an issue related to the civil rights and equitable treatment of millions of human beings. It's OK to take that issue extremely seriously.
- realpolitik 13y ago
  Monetary policy or minimum wages are issues of "small import"? They don't relate to equitable treatment of millions of human beings? I guess we can just lower taxes and increase the wealth gap however we see fit, as long as we have gay marriage.
joe_the_user 13y ago
I suspect that "being right", at least in the eyes of a lot of people not actively in the "mob" certainly made it much easier for this to happen and thus I don't see any clear "People from the Internet get what they want" precedent. It's a large group lobbying a nonprofit to persuade it to have someone who represents the ideals they supposedly uphold. That Mozilla is a company that shouldn't stand for X political position is something lots of people agree with. That the CEO is the company face and can be held to a different standard than an ordinary employee is clear to a larger group than just activists for cause X (even if some large group on HN don't seem to grasp it). For example, some movement to force the CEO of company X take a positive position in favor of political cause Y would have a lot harder time because it would seem much less reasonable to a larger group.
rodgerd 13y ago
If the CEO says "my views on why some of my employees shouldn't have the same rights as others of my employees" that seems pretty problematic. If this were a CEO who had been found to be donating to ban blacks and whites marrying it wouldn't even be a discussion.
jcfiala 13y ago
The mob on the internet got it this time due to some rather specific circumstances. There are plenty of companies out there that Brendan Eich could have been promoted to CEO of, which wouldn't have cared nearly as much about this level of controversy. It basically comes down to this - if Mozilla cares this much about what the internet thinks of it this strongly, then why didn't they pick someone else to begin with?

by Oculus 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

smsm42 13y ago

I'm kind of confused why a software project has to have any values about gay marriage. Should they also have values about abortion, gun control, marijuana legalization, single-payer healthcare, contraceptive funding, stem-cell research, fracking? You know, we have a lot of hot button topics here and a lot of groups who would like nothing more than make national news by attaching themselves to something or somebody famous and making a nice juicy controversy. Having nothing to do with what Mozilla foundation was supposed to do, but who cares?

bronson 13y ago
Because the project employs gay people, some of whom would be in a position to receive marriage benefits from said project.
- smsm42 13y ago
  So what? The project can also employ gun-owning people, marijuana-smoking people, birth-control-using people, healthcare-using people, etc. Those issues are hot issues because they interest a lot of people, and since big project employs a lot of people, it is inevitable that the intersection between people affected by the issue of the day and people working at big company is significant. And among them inevitably would be the people holding minority - or, in this case, unpopular majority opinion. If you refuse to interact with them, your circle of reference becomes very narrow indeed. Once diversity meant surrounding oneself with people different from you and learning to deal with them. Now some people understand diversity as surrounding oneself with people looking superficially different but thinking virtually the same, within very near bounds. This is just sad and wrong.
  - bronson 13y ago
    Um, the project would not give gun or marijuana benefits to its employees. Yes, government-sponsored birth control is a hot issue and many CEOs are having a hard time reconciling it. And, yes some people have quit over it. So, yes, it's similar. Being pro-diversity does not mean being morally obligated to accept racism or hate-induced views. That's pretzel logic.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      The project also doesn't give gay marriage benefits, so what's the difference? If the gay marriage ever is recognized by California or on federal level, the benefits would be automatically equalized. I'm not sure if it's possible to do that before the law is set in this regard (may be some accounting/tax issues with just giving benefits to people that the law considers strangers). >>> Being pro-diversity does not mean being morally obligated to accept racism or hate-induced views It does not mean that, of course. But it also does not mean you should try to ruin the life of everybody who disagrees with you.
      - bronson 13y ago
        Yes, the project does. Quote: "Mozilla offers the best benefits I have ever had and goes out of its way to offer benefits to its employees in same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships on par with those in heterosexual marriages." The bare minimum compliance with current law is no way run a company. Great companies do more for their employees than the law requires. I don't see anyone (other than idiot internet trolls) wanting his life ruined. All I see are some pretty compelling arguments for some difficulties he will face as a CEO and a lot of anguish that this had to happen at all. If he'd just shown some empathy in that CNet interview, I wonder if things would have gone differently? It read like an engineer's response, not like a CEO. Alas.
        bronson 13y ago
        Curious, why the downvote?
        13y ago

recusancy 13y ago

Who is "this mob"?

codyb 13y ago
It's all of us.
mhurron 13y ago
People with their own opinions and beliefs apparently.
return0 13y ago
> We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better. So Mozilla has to "act" the way some people "expect them to act". There was not even a ballot, poll or evaluation of the man in the position. It was a pretty ridiculous move to avoid bad press. Talk about to sticking to values like meritocracy.
- dethstar 13y ago
  It wasn't just bad press, someone here posted a link to a "biggish" organization in, I think, Australia where they were asking people to boycott Mozilla by not using it's software.
  - danudey 13y ago
    Also, OkCupid called them out on it extremely publicly.
    - JeremyMorgan 13y ago
      Yes, even though their employees have contributed far more. http://pastebin.com/ekaFQXbE http://pastebin.com/ekaFQXbE
      - yohui 13y ago

amaral-herberth 13y ago

They are not right on this one. Eich was clearly persecuted politically.

ZanyProgrammer 13y ago
Who persecuted Eich? His detractors were merely engaging in their freedom of speech. You know, free market and all that.
- amaral-herberth 13y ago
  I don't think so, pal. There is absolutely no evidence that Eich would be a real threat of freedom of speech inside Mozilla. He stepped down because of pression over his political views, which has nothing to do with his competence or the way he treats people.
- Touche 13y ago
  It's about being a gracious victor. Yes, Eich was on the wrong side of history when he supported prop 8 those years ago. Yes, those who support gay marriage are "right" and history will show this. But the graceful thing to do when you're right is not to curb-stomp those who were wrong. It's not to rub it in their face. It's not to ruin their lives because they made a mistake. The graceful thing to do when you are right is to let those who were wrong to get away with it. To let them pretend like it never happened. Because "winning" history is not about destroying those who opposed you.
  - arrrg 13y ago
    Curb stomp? Rub it in their face? What are you talking about? Eich never said that he was wrong. That’s his prerogative – he can have that opinion – but I’m not sure why anyone would forgive someone who isn’t even asking for forgiveness. I’m really all for forgiving mistakes and being graceful. There is no reason to rub someone’s past mistakes in their face when they already admitted to making a mistake. Humans screw up, even CEOs. I think in general we need to be more forgiving. But Eich never asked for forgiveness, so that’s really a moot point with him. Of course, harassment is not ok, but I really can’t see a problem (and also no internet mob) in voicing your opinion (even strongly worded) and calling for a boycott.

matthewmacleod 13y ago

on the other hand we just showed that when a mob on the Internet wants something - they get it. I don't think that this follows. In this particular case, someone was promoted to a role which many felt was incompatible with his personal views; they made that known, and the person in question stepped down. That's kind of how things should work in a community enterprise. That said, I understand he's received wildly disproportionate abuse, like death threats. That's totally unacceptable, and frankly I'm surprised that anybody feels that strongly about the issue.

angersock 13y ago
Here's the root of the issue: "many felt was incompatible with his personal views" Who all is "many" here? People at Mozilla? People in the tech industry? People who are LGBT? Angry people on the internet with nothing better to do than troll? People who actually were directly and personally affected by Eich's actions in donating, of which there are quite few compared to the number of people weighing in on this? It's easy to have an echo-chamber hollering for blood, but let's not pretend that those voices have any automatic credibility.
- matthewmacleod 13y ago
  People who actually were directly and personally affected by Eich's actions in donating, of which there are quite few compared to the number of people weighing in on this? Is this the case? There are a whole bunch of LGBT people working at Mozilla, and in the wider tech community. On top of that, there are families and friends of these people, who while not being personally affected can certainly legitimately object to the damage done to their close peers. I suspect that this affects more people than you are implying.
  - angersock 13y ago
    "damage done to their close peers" Again, what damage, and how does that get traced directly back to Eich? The law was repealed, marriage reinstated, and everything's fine. The system worked, so what's the issue? And a "whole bunch"? How many? Numbers? Percentage? Let us not suspect--we are in the Information Age. Google your way to success. The only number we have is $1000 from Eich to support Prop 8--that's the only number we have. Somehow that one number is enough evidence to cost the man his job, but magically nobody else has to back up their assails. Look, if the numbers for this act justify the outrage, sure, I'll recant--but that simply hasn't happened yet, and the bookkeeping is pretty shoddy.

jhchen 13y ago

Three board members did step down [1] so it's not just the internet. [1] http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/28/three-mozilla-board-members-resign-over-choice-of-new-ceo/ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/28/three-mozilla-board-m...

blueveek 13y ago
They didn't step down because of Brendan, but for different reasons. "The three board members ended their terms last week for a variety of reasons. Two had been planning to leave for some time, one since January and one explicitly at the end of the CEO search, regardless of the person selected." [0] http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/three-mozilla-board-members-including-two-former-ceos-step-down/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/three-mozilla-board-...

kilroy123 13y ago

This is why I think we don't truly have a democracy anymore. Instead we now have an Ochlocracy[1]. Ruled by mobs and groups of people (super pacs and multinational corporations)[2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

matthewmacleod 13y ago
This could not have less to do with the situation. Mozilla is not a democracy.

return0 13y ago

For example, if the mob tomorrow decides that it's OK to give up privacy for "security", mozilla will happily have to oblige to become a state security tool. That's why strong leadership with values is needed.

danudey 13y ago
I don't think 'standing in the way of equality' is really the kind of values that Mozilla needs.
- return0 13y ago
  Apparently "tolerant to opposing political opinions" is not such a value either. I presume most Mozilla users, myself included, are in favor of gay marriage, yet there is no clause that you "have to support gay marriage" to use Mozilla software. It's also obvious that if Eich ever let his political beliefs affect his decisions on software he would be fired immediately.
ralfd 13y ago
Ironically I think it is ultimately a privacy issue. His (small) donation shouldn't have been publicly disclosed.

crimsonalucard 13y ago

The mob is definitely an emotional child but it doesn't have anywhere near unlimited power.

conkrete 13y ago

In business the "Mob" is usually right. If the mob of people are saying they won't buy into your product, you usually conform to the mob.

DEinspanjer 13y ago
True, but Mozilla does not typically operate as a standard business. They have a different goal, and that goal and quite frequently be at odds with the "mob". The majority of people and certainly the political inclination of the day is taking power and freedom away from people in the context of the Web. If Mozilla went with the mob rule instead of the smaller but passionate group that feel that is wrong, it would quickly be just like every other browser vendor out there, and it wouldn't be attempting to make a difference in the web, despite whether it is the most profitable stance.
scottmagdalein 13y ago
In this case the "mob" that was outraged was a small, very vocal minority.
- conkrete 13y ago
  I wasn't aware of this, they certainly were vocal enough to make it appear like a mob.

gfosco 13y ago

Unfortunately I think what this encourages is being less genuine.. hiding your personal feelings when they go against the current tide. Was the problem truly that he felt this way, or that he publicly+financially felt that way? If there was no public record of his position, there'd be no controversy. I completely disagree with his position, but I don't think shutting him up or vilifying him is the answer.

chris_mahan 13y ago
Wecome to Corporate America.
byuu 13y ago
The problem is that it ceased to be his personal opinion when he donated money to and voted to strip other people of their rights (while keeping those rights for himself) under force of law. He directly contributed to preventing some of his very own employees from being able to marry in their home state of California. A right they had previously enjoyed. If he held to his own beliefs, but allowed others to have their own beliefs and live their lives how they wanted, I sincerely doubt this would have been such a big issue.

ucarion 13y ago

There are beliefs in this world that you cannot publicly hold and still expect to be taken seriously. If Eich were arguing against interracial marriage there would be very little debate about this issue; believing that humans cannot marry between races is not a belief modern society continues to respect. I think this controversy is an indication that -- to the tech community at least -- believing that discrimination based on sexual orientation is one of those illegitimate beliefs.

ralfd 13y ago
But Eich isn't arguing or advocating anything. All he made was to donate to a popular proposition, I mean, it did found the majority of the electorate (then). In all other comments I read from him, he says his private politic views are a private matter and I agree with him there. I also think donations of this rather small size ($1000) should not needed to be publicly disclosed.
- shinratdr 13y ago
  What does it being popular have to do with anything? Popular bigotry is still bigotry. A donation in support of that bigotry is tantamount to bigotry. Finally, personal political views absolutely enter in to public debate when the views are held by a public figurehead that is in place to represent the ideals of an organization. This is how you change public opinion, by making it dangerous to hold these views and still be supported or taken seriously. People didn't just suddenly decide not to be racist. It took endless shaming of the people that hold those views until those views are no longer the norm, then the next generation grows up in an environment where that kind of bigotry is considered reprehensible and instead of just hiding their bigotry due to shame, they actually find it reprehensible. This is social change in action. Personal views aren't sacrosanct, and simply believing in something and having the right to say it doesn't entitle you to be tolerated or respected by those who hear it. Free speech isn't a license to say or do whatever the fuck you want without consequence. It simply protects you from government censorship or physical violence.
  - ralfd 13y ago

agapos 13y ago

"On the one hand, Brendan Eich had some beliefs that were against Mozilla's core values." Care to elaborate this? Last time I read, the Mozilla Manifeto[1] says nothing about marriage rights or anything marginally related. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/

danudey 13y ago
The Mozilla Manifesto should not be taken to be the total sum of what Mozilla, as an organization, believes. Their Manifesto is about how they believe the internet should behave and be treated, not how the company itself should behave and act with regards to its own employees.
- agapos 13y ago
  "The Mozilla Manifesto should not be taken to be the total sum of what Mozilla, as an organization, believes." That's the deal. They all think differently on subjects unrelated to the Manifesto. True, there may be cases where the ratio is 99% against 1%. But it's still there.
_t5yy 13y ago
Exactly. Mozilla is about at the end of the day "openness" unfortunately for some people at mozilla, that means working with people who's views you might not be comfortable with. This is the whole point of working in and pushing for an open society.
- lcfg 13y ago
  This isn't what "open society" means. In your view, what would we do with people that discriminate based on gender, or skin colour? We cannot tolerate this. Any society must strive to ensure equal rights to its members. Edit: we're not going to have this debate for every minority group. This equal rights thing is happening, whether you like it or not.
- smsm42 13y ago
  It looks like some people's response to working with people who's views you might not be comfortable with is to get those people fired. Which is great, as long as you always hold the views which is approved by everybody and never step out of the line. Woe to you if you do.

rpearl 13y ago

You know what? great. I'm glad that there was so much political pressure that someone who does not support gay rights simply could not hold the position of CEO at a tech company. That's absolutely fantastic.

general_failure 13y ago
Not sure why you are getting downvoted here. Especially given that everyone was raging about it here before this happenned.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

This isn't a new thing. It's not even a recent thing. Public opinion has always been a potent force. For an organization like Mozilla I don't think it's at all surprising that public opinion has a big role in shaping who is at the helm. It's also not overly scary to me that issues of equality related to sexual orientation are now prominent enough to be a major factor in issues like the leadership of the Mozilla Organization. Indeed, personally I think it's somewhat heartening. There are, and should be, limits to how much we allow politics to influence business, but in this case we're not talking about issues of small import. This isn't about monetary policy or minimum wages, this is an issue related to the civil rights and equitable treatment of millions of human beings. It's OK to take that issue extremely seriously.

realpolitik 13y ago
Monetary policy or minimum wages are issues of "small import"? They don't relate to equitable treatment of millions of human beings? I guess we can just lower taxes and increase the wealth gap however we see fit, as long as we have gay marriage.

joe_the_user 13y ago

I suspect that "being right", at least in the eyes of a lot of people not actively in the "mob" certainly made it much easier for this to happen and thus I don't see any clear "People from the Internet get what they want" precedent. It's a large group lobbying a nonprofit to persuade it to have someone who represents the ideals they supposedly uphold. That Mozilla is a company that shouldn't stand for X political position is something lots of people agree with. That the CEO is the company face and can be held to a different standard than an ordinary employee is clear to a larger group than just activists for cause X (even if some large group on HN don't seem to grasp it). For example, some movement to force the CEO of company X take a positive position in favor of political cause Y would have a lot harder time because it would seem much less reasonable to a larger group.

rodgerd 13y ago

If the CEO says "my views on why some of my employees shouldn't have the same rights as others of my employees" that seems pretty problematic. If this were a CEO who had been found to be donating to ban blacks and whites marrying it wouldn't even be a discussion.

jcfiala 13y ago

The mob on the internet got it this time due to some rather specific circumstances. There are plenty of companies out there that Brendan Eich could have been promoted to CEO of, which wouldn't have cared nearly as much about this level of controversy. It basically comes down to this - if Mozilla cares this much about what the internet thinks of it this strongly, then why didn't they pick someone else to begin with?