11 ms·

From the recode recap - http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan-eich-resigns-as-ceo-and-also-from-foundation-board/ http://recode.net/2014/04/03

by phillmv 13y ago

From the recode recap - http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan-eich-resigns-as-ceo-and-also-from-foundation-board/ http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan-eich... >“It’s clear that Brendan cannot lead Mozilla in this setting,” said Baker, who added that she would not and could not speak for Eich. “The ability to lead — particularly for the CEO — is fundamental to the role and that is not possible here.” The most damning aspect of this was their a) inability to predict this would be an issue and b) their inability to deal with it once it did. All he had to do was lie and say "I understand how my activities can be seen as divisive and wrong and inconsistent with my commitment to upholding the diverse values underpinning the Mozilla community and I apologize for my behaviour at the time. I will do everything in my power to make up for it and I hope the community can judge me based me on my record from this point onwards". Then, find ways to anonymously engage in whatever political causes he supports, or wait till he's no longer CEO. The tone deafness of his last interview was kind of the last straw.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
BuckRogers 13y ago
"""All he had to do was lie and say "I understand how my activities can be seen as divisive and wrong and inconsistent with my commitment to upholding the diverse values underpinning the Mozilla community and I apologize for my behaviour at the time. I will do everything in my power to make up for it and I hope the community can judge me based me on my record from this point onwards".""" He did say that. https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/
- mef 13y ago
  He did not apologize for his behaviour, he expressed his "sorrow at having caused pain." Quite different.
  - waterlesscloud 13y ago
    It's really not, but people choose to see it that way.
    - mef 13y ago
      An apology is acknowledgement of wrongdoing. He did not acknowledge wrongdoing, he acknowledged that he hurt people but did not admit to any wrongdoing.
seldon 13y ago
Eich's late March '14 comment, for reference: https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/
codinghorror 13y ago
I agree with this. His last interview was just embarrassingly bad, no kind of leadership at all. Leadership is taking responsibility and owning your actions, not hand waving and vaguely pushing away.
- weixiyen 13y ago
  From what I've seen, he has demonstrated a few of the traits of a Level 5 leader (from the book Good to Great). Very humble, puts others before himself, has integrity. The fact that he's not a skilled interviewer and terrible at politics is a plus, not a negative. CEOs with integrity in the face of public persecution are very rare. The next guy to replace him could be someone that will sink the Mozilla ship. > Leadership is taking responsibility and owning your actions. You are implying that it is a fact that his actions are wrong, when it's simply an opinion.
blueveek 13y ago
"All he had to do was lie". Are you suggesting this would've been better, in the grand scheme of things?
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  This is the culture we've created for ourselves. The only people who can be in a position of power or publicity must be sanitized to the extreme. Hold a view that isn't mainstream and you will be eviscerated by a mob that has hijacked the media. I guarantee that no one has a completely "right" set of views that won't anger some faction of the population enough to create a mob response. Of course, we still need politicians, CEOs, and presidents. And thus the only way these people can rise to the top is to lie through their teeth. This is the environment we've created, and thus this is what we get. Incentives matter, and instances like this simply re-enforce the fact that one must lie about their true opinions otherwise you will be tarred and feathered.
  - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
    "sanitized to the extreme" "Hold a view that isn't mainstream" We're not talking about slightly controversial views, 'colorful' language, or a 'racy' past here, we're talking about out-and-out homophobia, wanting people to be treated as lesser humans simply because of who they love. Please, that is a LONG way from being 'sanitized to the extreme'.
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      Personally I think your characterization is hyperbole. There are a lot of rational reasons to oppose gay marriage (if you allow one their irrational premises). Opposing the state recognizing gay marriage is far from "treating people as lesser humans".
      - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
        If there were no state benefits for those married, of course. But there are. Both opposing gay marriage AND not opposing that benefit system is patently discriminatory - how could it be anything else? It is saying 'there is no way you are going to get the same benefits as other people, because of whom you happen to love'.
fournm 13y ago
His last interview was the point where I started to call for it, as he buried his head in the sand with everything that's happened.
weixiyen 13y ago
So the ideal CEO is someone who will lie about his beliefs the second it becomes inconvenient for him?
- thumbtackthief 13y ago
  He could have at least honestly said that he wouldn't donate to such causes again. In the current climate, that would just be a foolish waste of money anyway.
  - drdeca 13y ago
    Because, of course, a lie of omission* can't really be considered a lie at all! Of course, it all depends what we mean by lie. In my experience this tends to vary from person to person. Personally, I do tend to lie of omission* much more willingly than not of omission, though I am not really convinced that it is any more moral.
    - thumbtackthief 13y ago
      I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. When he was asked if he would donate more money to these causes, a savvy person would have thought to himself, "You know, I've already said how I feel about the issue at hand. However, clearly my donations are causing some very bad press for the company I'm supposed to lead, so it would be unwise as a leader to repeat that action however I personally feel," and honestly answered, "No, I'm not going to donate to those causes anymore despite whatever my personal viewpoints are." No lies.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Also works well in politics, apparently.
  - rbanffy 13y ago
nostrademons 13y ago
It speaks a lot to his integrity that he didn't. Would you rather have a CEO who says one thing in public and then goes and does another thing surreptitiously, or one who stands up for his beliefs even when they're unpopular?
- SimHacker 13y ago
  It speaks to his integrity as a hateful bigot that he didn't have the human decency to change his beliefs based on the fact that he was completely incapable of coming up with a valid justification for them, and refused to justify himself or apologize for what he did. And no, his non-apology apology was not an apology.
- thinkpad20 13y ago
  It speaks to the fact that he really, truly feels that way... which is a big problem. Sticking to your beliefs is not a virtue if your beliefs are reprehensible.
- ebbv 13y ago
  Integrity is only admirable when you are standing up for what's right.
  - priyankc 13y ago
    right for whom?
- sanxiyn 13y ago
  I think this showed Eich is insufficiently dedicated to Mozilla's mission. If Eich believed he can help Mozilla's mission by being a CEO (otherwise, why bother?), is lying about an issue more important than how much you could help Mozilla's mission? Utilitarian 101. On the other hand, Eich probably didn't make such utilitarian calculation, and followed "do not lie" deontology instead. Pity.
  - nhaehnle 13y ago
    I "like" how it didn't even occur to you that having a person who is known for integrity and honesty might be a positive. The collateral damage of advocating a world with more liars (which is what you are doing) is gigantic, because you are now forcing everybody to waste (more) mental energy on trying to discern truth from lie.
smirksirlot 13y ago
Yes. I was waiting until he had the opportunity to actually put out a good response (despite the initial waffle). That interview destroyed any faith I had. But I blame this entire trial and failure on the Board. It is their responsibility to vet candidates, and their inability see how this could blow up shows a horrible lack of judgment on their part.
MrZongle2 13y ago
"All he had to do was lie" This speaks volumes.
- forgottenpass 13y ago
  I would have agreed years ago, but consider me jaded. All it says to me is "Yep, you're reading Hacker News."
  - peterashford 13y ago
    Thank you for saying so. I find the moral compass of a lot of HN posters rather baffling sometimes. Nice to know I'm not the only one :o)
    - chrismonsanto 13y ago
      > I find the moral compass of a lot of HN posters rather baffling sometimes. From what I can tell, pretty much everyone in this topic thinks that opposing gay marriage is immoral and donating money to Prop 8 is a bad thing. The divide is on whether it is OK to oust someone for their beliefs, given a lot of extenuating circumstances. And on HN, there are a large number of people who think yes, and a large number of people who think no. You know what bothers me? People who try to shut down debate. Those that think not only is the other side wrong, but it's not even up for discussion. There's another poster decrying the lack of ethics in the tech community, which really is another way of saying "don't even talk about this, my opinion is right/ethical/moral, and yours is wrong/unethical/immoral." Another way of shutting down debate is by making snarky one-liners. Why actually talk about something when you can assert that you are right, and that HN is stupid (presumably excluding the large number of people who agree with you)? What exactly are you adding to the discussion?
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - exodust 13y ago
        Umm.. sorry, but not everyone thinks opposing gay marriage is immoral. That's just you hoping that everyone agrees with your point of view. Which they don't. Morality has nothing to do with defining the limitations of artificial mad-made things such as "marriage". It's like denying the gay community their annual mardi gras because the streets are trashed with broken bottles and nothing really good comes out of it except gay people have a big party. Cancelling the party would surely bring much "gay hatred" accusations. So the party continues, every year. And every year the same thing happens - streets trashed and gay party people pop pills all night long. Imagine if there was an annual heterosexual party, celebrating heterosexuality? Imagine the outcry and hatred directed at such a thing? I have nothing against gay people, but personally find the whole gay activist vibe on the marriage issue really pathetic and manipulative. Fair enough fight for equal laws regarding health and so on, but marriage is what it is. You need to respect people who want to keep marriage as something for a man+woman. If I don't agree with gay marriage, I DO NOT deserve your hatred and ridicule,
akerl_ 13y ago
I would have considered him a worse person if he'd done that. I disagree with his opinions on marriage, but he has the right to have those opinions, and to provide support for causes he believes in. I'm not shocked the he is stepping down, or that others in the organization appear to have applied substantial pressure on him to do so, but it makes me sad. Their statements about supporting freedom of speech are hollow: the community has pressured him to step down because he expressed an opinion not held by the majority.
- blisterpeanuts 13y ago
  Ironically, though, his opinion was supported by the majority in that California election: 7 million to 6.4 million in favor of Prop 8. I guess if they consider any other candidates for CEO from California, they'll have to ask them how they voted.
  - mkr-hn 13y ago
    How can it be a right if it's subject to a majority vote?
    - baddox 13y ago
      What's the other option? One person, or a small elite group, deciding the list of "rights"?
    - icebraining 13y ago
      All rights are subject to majority vote. Or subject to the majority, anyway.
      - matthewn 13y ago
        No, rights are manifestly NOT subject to a vote. That is why they are called rights.
        icebraining 13y ago
radicalbyte 13y ago
> All he had to do was lie I may be diametrically opposed to Brendan's views, but he has earned my respect by being honest and sticking to his values.
- danudey 13y ago
  Meh. Sticking to your values of exclusion and divisiveness isn't really something I can respect someone for. 'Good for you for continuing to believe that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, even though it doesn't hurt you in any way if they do.' Preventing gay people from getting married really just seems like spite, like 'I don't like you so you can't have this'. I can't respect someone like that.
  - radicalbyte 13y ago
    > even though it doesn't hurt you in any way if they do. He is no longer CEO of Mozilla, a job he quite clearly wanted to do. Sticking to his beliefs _HAS_ cost him. It's not spite. It's based on his moral framework. 15 years ago I shared that framework, so I understand why he feels that way. He is, in my opinion, wrong, and I hope that he eventually realizes that (like I did). But he stuck to his beliefs at a time when lesser men would have buckled. We could do with my people like that in the financial industry..
    - DerKommissar 13y ago
      Would you say the same of people who hold opinions you've always thought were immoral? Do you respect the current remaining members of the KKK for sticking to their guns?
- SimHacker 13y ago
  You should respect him if he had the integrity to earnestly change his views. But he deserves absolutely no respect for sticking to views that are wrong and hateful that he refuses to even justify. Just because you were a bigot 15 years ago doesn't mean you should respect bigots who haven't changed their opinions yet. You deserve some respect for changing your views, but Brendan only deserves contempt for failing to do that himself, not respect.
mdisraeli 13y ago
I completely agree, and thank you actually for saying "All he had to do was lie". We may not like that said option exists, but lying was an option. As was simply saying "I'm not going to lie {comment about personal beliefs}" - which may wouldn't have helped him keep the job, but might have given me more respect for the guy[1] [1] As an out and proud queer, I'd rather someone be honest than obviously skirt around issues without addressing them. At least then we know were we stand
Borogove 13y ago
All he had to do was learn.
macspoofing 13y ago
>The most damning aspect of this was their a) inability to predict this would be an issue and b) their inability to deal with it once it did. I'll grant you a) but with respect to b) there was nothing they could have really done once Eich decided to stand his ground. Who would have thought that Eich felt so strongly on this topic that he was willing to sacrifice his CEO position and possibly his future at Mozilla. He never came close to either apologizing for his actions or publicly supporting gay marriage. He really really is against gay-marriage, that's his thing. >All he had to do was lie... Personally, I'd rather he not lie.
tdicola 13y ago
Yeah I couldn't believe the last interview he did where he basically hand waved the whole controversy away and effectively said if people make a big deal it will just hurt Firefox.
wwweston 13y ago
> "I understand how my activities can be seen as divisive and wrong and inconsistent with my commitment to upholding the diverse values underpinning the Mozilla community and I apologize for my behaviour at the time. I will do everything in my power to make up for it and I hope the community can judge me based me on my record from this point onwards". This is close enough to what he actually said: https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ that it's not at all far-fetched to wonder if there's anything he could have said or done that would have been enough.
- wpietri 13y ago
  The difference to me is that he hasn't admitted his previous views or apologized for the harm he did. Saying, in effect, "Oh, I don't want to talk about helping to strip gay people of their civil rights, but I promise at work I'll be totally awesome," struck me as a) weaselly, and b) unconvincing. Personally, I don't care much about the donation alone. But his handling of it has been terrible. If he had owned his action and apologized, this would have been a small issue. But from both a staff- and media-relations perspective, leaving this an open issue and trying to dodge the meat of it was a mistake. It's that that makes me think he might not have been a good CEO.
booruguru 13y ago
>All he had to do was lie and say "I understand how my activities can be seen as divisive and wrong and inconsistent with my commitment to upholding the diverse values underpinning the Mozilla community and I apologize for my behaviour at the time. I will do everything in my power to make up for it and I hope the community can judge me based me on my record from this point onwards". I think liberals have a hard time understanding that "bad people" people truly believe the things they say and do. If someone feels that their beliefs are justified they generally don't care if it upsets people. It seems like all you wanted from his guy was an insincere apology...or worse rhetorical nonsensical featuring all the right pleasant-sounding keywords. Frankly, I prefer it when bigots speak freely and openly-- that way the rest of us can understand what we're up against.

by phillmv 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

BuckRogers 13y ago

"""All he had to do was lie and say "I understand how my activities can be seen as divisive and wrong and inconsistent with my commitment to upholding the diverse values underpinning the Mozilla community and I apologize for my behaviour at the time. I will do everything in my power to make up for it and I hope the community can judge me based me on my record from this point onwards".""" He did say that. https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/

mef 13y ago
He did not apologize for his behaviour, he expressed his "sorrow at having caused pain." Quite different.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  It's really not, but people choose to see it that way.
  - mef 13y ago
    An apology is acknowledgement of wrongdoing. He did not acknowledge wrongdoing, he acknowledged that he hurt people but did not admit to any wrongdoing.

seldon 13y ago

Eich's late March '14 comment, for reference: https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/

codinghorror 13y ago

I agree with this. His last interview was just embarrassingly bad, no kind of leadership at all. Leadership is taking responsibility and owning your actions, not hand waving and vaguely pushing away.

weixiyen 13y ago
From what I've seen, he has demonstrated a few of the traits of a Level 5 leader (from the book Good to Great). Very humble, puts others before himself, has integrity. The fact that he's not a skilled interviewer and terrible at politics is a plus, not a negative. CEOs with integrity in the face of public persecution are very rare. The next guy to replace him could be someone that will sink the Mozilla ship. > Leadership is taking responsibility and owning your actions. You are implying that it is a fact that his actions are wrong, when it's simply an opinion.

blueveek 13y ago

"All he had to do was lie". Are you suggesting this would've been better, in the grand scheme of things?

hackinthebochs 13y ago
This is the culture we've created for ourselves. The only people who can be in a position of power or publicity must be sanitized to the extreme. Hold a view that isn't mainstream and you will be eviscerated by a mob that has hijacked the media. I guarantee that no one has a completely "right" set of views that won't anger some faction of the population enough to create a mob response. Of course, we still need politicians, CEOs, and presidents. And thus the only way these people can rise to the top is to lie through their teeth. This is the environment we've created, and thus this is what we get. Incentives matter, and instances like this simply re-enforce the fact that one must lie about their true opinions otherwise you will be tarred and feathered.
- oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
  "sanitized to the extreme" "Hold a view that isn't mainstream" We're not talking about slightly controversial views, 'colorful' language, or a 'racy' past here, we're talking about out-and-out homophobia, wanting people to be treated as lesser humans simply because of who they love. Please, that is a LONG way from being 'sanitized to the extreme'.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    Personally I think your characterization is hyperbole. There are a lot of rational reasons to oppose gay marriage (if you allow one their irrational premises). Opposing the state recognizing gay marriage is far from "treating people as lesser humans".
    - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
      If there were no state benefits for those married, of course. But there are. Both opposing gay marriage AND not opposing that benefit system is patently discriminatory - how could it be anything else? It is saying 'there is no way you are going to get the same benefits as other people, because of whom you happen to love'.

fournm 13y ago

His last interview was the point where I started to call for it, as he buried his head in the sand with everything that's happened.

weixiyen 13y ago

So the ideal CEO is someone who will lie about his beliefs the second it becomes inconvenient for him?

thumbtackthief 13y ago
He could have at least honestly said that he wouldn't donate to such causes again. In the current climate, that would just be a foolish waste of money anyway.
- drdeca 13y ago
  Because, of course, a lie of omission* can't really be considered a lie at all! Of course, it all depends what we mean by lie. In my experience this tends to vary from person to person. Personally, I do tend to lie of omission* much more willingly than not of omission, though I am not really convinced that it is any more moral.
  - thumbtackthief 13y ago
    I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. When he was asked if he would donate more money to these causes, a savvy person would have thought to himself, "You know, I've already said how I feel about the issue at hand. However, clearly my donations are causing some very bad press for the company I'm supposed to lead, so it would be unwise as a leader to repeat that action however I personally feel," and honestly answered, "No, I'm not going to donate to those causes anymore despite whatever my personal viewpoints are." No lies.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Also works well in politics, apparently.
- rbanffy 13y ago

nostrademons 13y ago

It speaks a lot to his integrity that he didn't. Would you rather have a CEO who says one thing in public and then goes and does another thing surreptitiously, or one who stands up for his beliefs even when they're unpopular?

SimHacker 13y ago
It speaks to his integrity as a hateful bigot that he didn't have the human decency to change his beliefs based on the fact that he was completely incapable of coming up with a valid justification for them, and refused to justify himself or apologize for what he did. And no, his non-apology apology was not an apology.
thinkpad20 13y ago
It speaks to the fact that he really, truly feels that way... which is a big problem. Sticking to your beliefs is not a virtue if your beliefs are reprehensible.
ebbv 13y ago
Integrity is only admirable when you are standing up for what's right.
- priyankc 13y ago
  right for whom?
sanxiyn 13y ago
I think this showed Eich is insufficiently dedicated to Mozilla's mission. If Eich believed he can help Mozilla's mission by being a CEO (otherwise, why bother?), is lying about an issue more important than how much you could help Mozilla's mission? Utilitarian 101. On the other hand, Eich probably didn't make such utilitarian calculation, and followed "do not lie" deontology instead. Pity.
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  I "like" how it didn't even occur to you that having a person who is known for integrity and honesty might be a positive. The collateral damage of advocating a world with more liars (which is what you are doing) is gigantic, because you are now forcing everybody to waste (more) mental energy on trying to discern truth from lie.

smirksirlot 13y ago

Yes. I was waiting until he had the opportunity to actually put out a good response (despite the initial waffle). That interview destroyed any faith I had. But I blame this entire trial and failure on the Board. It is their responsibility to vet candidates, and their inability see how this could blow up shows a horrible lack of judgment on their part.

MrZongle2 13y ago

"All he had to do was lie" This speaks volumes.

forgottenpass 13y ago
I would have agreed years ago, but consider me jaded. All it says to me is "Yep, you're reading Hacker News."
- peterashford 13y ago
  Thank you for saying so. I find the moral compass of a lot of HN posters rather baffling sometimes. Nice to know I'm not the only one :o)
  - chrismonsanto 13y ago
    > I find the moral compass of a lot of HN posters rather baffling sometimes. From what I can tell, pretty much everyone in this topic thinks that opposing gay marriage is immoral and donating money to Prop 8 is a bad thing. The divide is on whether it is OK to oust someone for their beliefs, given a lot of extenuating circumstances. And on HN, there are a large number of people who think yes, and a large number of people who think no. You know what bothers me? People who try to shut down debate. Those that think not only is the other side wrong, but it's not even up for discussion. There's another poster decrying the lack of ethics in the tech community, which really is another way of saying "don't even talk about this, my opinion is right/ethical/moral, and yours is wrong/unethical/immoral." Another way of shutting down debate is by making snarky one-liners. Why actually talk about something when you can assert that you are right, and that HN is stupid (presumably excluding the large number of people who agree with you)? What exactly are you adding to the discussion?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - exodust 13y ago
      Umm.. sorry, but not everyone thinks opposing gay marriage is immoral. That's just you hoping that everyone agrees with your point of view. Which they don't. Morality has nothing to do with defining the limitations of artificial mad-made things such as "marriage". It's like denying the gay community their annual mardi gras because the streets are trashed with broken bottles and nothing really good comes out of it except gay people have a big party. Cancelling the party would surely bring much "gay hatred" accusations. So the party continues, every year. And every year the same thing happens - streets trashed and gay party people pop pills all night long. Imagine if there was an annual heterosexual party, celebrating heterosexuality? Imagine the outcry and hatred directed at such a thing? I have nothing against gay people, but personally find the whole gay activist vibe on the marriage issue really pathetic and manipulative. Fair enough fight for equal laws regarding health and so on, but marriage is what it is. You need to respect people who want to keep marriage as something for a man+woman. If I don't agree with gay marriage, I DO NOT deserve your hatred and ridicule,

akerl_ 13y ago

I would have considered him a worse person if he'd done that. I disagree with his opinions on marriage, but he has the right to have those opinions, and to provide support for causes he believes in. I'm not shocked the he is stepping down, or that others in the organization appear to have applied substantial pressure on him to do so, but it makes me sad. Their statements about supporting freedom of speech are hollow: the community has pressured him to step down because he expressed an opinion not held by the majority.

blisterpeanuts 13y ago
Ironically, though, his opinion was supported by the majority in that California election: 7 million to 6.4 million in favor of Prop 8. I guess if they consider any other candidates for CEO from California, they'll have to ask them how they voted.
- mkr-hn 13y ago
  How can it be a right if it's subject to a majority vote?
  - baddox 13y ago
    What's the other option? One person, or a small elite group, deciding the list of "rights"?
  - icebraining 13y ago
    All rights are subject to majority vote. Or subject to the majority, anyway.
    - matthewn 13y ago
      No, rights are manifestly NOT subject to a vote. That is why they are called rights.
      - icebraining 13y ago

radicalbyte 13y ago

> All he had to do was lie I may be diametrically opposed to Brendan's views, but he has earned my respect by being honest and sticking to his values.

danudey 13y ago
Meh. Sticking to your values of exclusion and divisiveness isn't really something I can respect someone for. 'Good for you for continuing to believe that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, even though it doesn't hurt you in any way if they do.' Preventing gay people from getting married really just seems like spite, like 'I don't like you so you can't have this'. I can't respect someone like that.
- radicalbyte 13y ago
  > even though it doesn't hurt you in any way if they do. He is no longer CEO of Mozilla, a job he quite clearly wanted to do. Sticking to his beliefs _HAS_ cost him. It's not spite. It's based on his moral framework. 15 years ago I shared that framework, so I understand why he feels that way. He is, in my opinion, wrong, and I hope that he eventually realizes that (like I did). But he stuck to his beliefs at a time when lesser men would have buckled. We could do with my people like that in the financial industry..
  - DerKommissar 13y ago
    Would you say the same of people who hold opinions you've always thought were immoral? Do you respect the current remaining members of the KKK for sticking to their guns?
SimHacker 13y ago
You should respect him if he had the integrity to earnestly change his views. But he deserves absolutely no respect for sticking to views that are wrong and hateful that he refuses to even justify. Just because you were a bigot 15 years ago doesn't mean you should respect bigots who haven't changed their opinions yet. You deserve some respect for changing your views, but Brendan only deserves contempt for failing to do that himself, not respect.

mdisraeli 13y ago

I completely agree, and thank you actually for saying "All he had to do was lie". We may not like that said option exists, but lying was an option. As was simply saying "I'm not going to lie {comment about personal beliefs}" - which may wouldn't have helped him keep the job, but might have given me more respect for the guy[1] [1] As an out and proud queer, I'd rather someone be honest than obviously skirt around issues without addressing them. At least then we know were we stand

Borogove 13y ago

All he had to do was learn.

macspoofing 13y ago

>The most damning aspect of this was their a) inability to predict this would be an issue and b) their inability to deal with it once it did. I'll grant you a) but with respect to b) there was nothing they could have really done once Eich decided to stand his ground. Who would have thought that Eich felt so strongly on this topic that he was willing to sacrifice his CEO position and possibly his future at Mozilla. He never came close to either apologizing for his actions or publicly supporting gay marriage. He really really is against gay-marriage, that's his thing. >All he had to do was lie... Personally, I'd rather he not lie.

tdicola 13y ago

Yeah I couldn't believe the last interview he did where he basically hand waved the whole controversy away and effectively said if people make a big deal it will just hurt Firefox.

wwweston 13y ago

> "I understand how my activities can be seen as divisive and wrong and inconsistent with my commitment to upholding the diverse values underpinning the Mozilla community and I apologize for my behaviour at the time. I will do everything in my power to make up for it and I hope the community can judge me based me on my record from this point onwards". This is close enough to what he actually said: https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ that it's not at all far-fetched to wonder if there's anything he could have said or done that would have been enough.

wpietri 13y ago
The difference to me is that he hasn't admitted his previous views or apologized for the harm he did. Saying, in effect, "Oh, I don't want to talk about helping to strip gay people of their civil rights, but I promise at work I'll be totally awesome," struck me as a) weaselly, and b) unconvincing. Personally, I don't care much about the donation alone. But his handling of it has been terrible. If he had owned his action and apologized, this would have been a small issue. But from both a staff- and media-relations perspective, leaving this an open issue and trying to dodge the meat of it was a mistake. It's that that makes me think he might not have been a good CEO.

booruguru 13y ago

>All he had to do was lie and say "I understand how my activities can be seen as divisive and wrong and inconsistent with my commitment to upholding the diverse values underpinning the Mozilla community and I apologize for my behaviour at the time. I will do everything in my power to make up for it and I hope the community can judge me based me on my record from this point onwards". I think liberals have a hard time understanding that "bad people" people truly believe the things they say and do. If someone feels that their beliefs are justified they generally don't care if it upsets people. It seems like all you wanted from his guy was an insincere apology...or worse rhetorical nonsensical featuring all the right pleasant-sounding keywords. Frankly, I prefer it when bigots speak freely and openly-- that way the rest of us can understand what we're up against.