5 ms·

Because the project employs gay people, some of whom would be in a position to receive marriage benefits from said project.

by bronson 13y ago

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?
      - smsm42 13y ago
        OK, so that's possible (I wasn't sure it is but I'm rather ignorant in accounting/tax law) and Mozilla, despite their CEO supporting Prop 8, does absolute maximum that is possible, going out of their way to be inclusive. So what exactly is the concern with him as the CEO? >>> If he'd just shown some empathy in that CNet interview, I wonder if things would have gone differently? I think this is disingenuous. The campaign people were absolutely out for him for donating to prop 8 and won't be satisfied unless he's gone from CEO position. Saying it like "oh, if only he'd say this and that then it all be fine" doesn't make any sense - it wouldn't be fine for people who called to boycott Mozilla over it until he'd be gone. Now he's gone, and probably own't be able to serve in high position in any large company, because if he were, the same people would immediately use it to get more air time attacking him. Does it ruin his life? I don't know, depends on the point of view. But definitely it will have a lasting impact.
        bronson 13y ago
        The concern is that those policies were put in place before he became CEO. They're a part of Mozilla culture, yet he made no (publicized) attempt to reconcile his well-known personal views with them. That's a problem! He could have let the campaign bluster. A good CEO will piss a few people off anyway. It's inevitable. Eich could have let a few developers quit, but shown everyone else (especially the board!) why he's the right person for the job. Unfortunately, his recent bumbling turned a medium PR mess into a major one, and demonstrated that he might not be CEO material after all. That's my take anyway -- I don't believe the original donation was the cause of his resignation, just the trigger. There are a number of Silicon Valley companies that would hire him to a high position today. Probably not to CEO or HR of course. Or PR. But remember how many influential friends he has -- they won't be swayed by this mess. In a few months, when all this has blown over, I expect most companies will be happy to forget this ever happend. His life is far from ruined.

Because the project employs gay people, some of whom would be in a position to receive marriage benefits from said project.

by 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?
    - smsm42 13y ago
      OK, so that's possible (I wasn't sure it is but I'm rather ignorant in accounting/tax law) and Mozilla, despite their CEO supporting Prop 8, does absolute maximum that is possible, going out of their way to be inclusive. So what exactly is the concern with him as the CEO? >>> If he'd just shown some empathy in that CNet interview, I wonder if things would have gone differently? I think this is disingenuous. The campaign people were absolutely out for him for donating to prop 8 and won't be satisfied unless he's gone from CEO position. Saying it like "oh, if only he'd say this and that then it all be fine" doesn't make any sense - it wouldn't be fine for people who called to boycott Mozilla over it until he'd be gone. Now he's gone, and probably own't be able to serve in high position in any large company, because if he were, the same people would immediately use it to get more air time attacking him. Does it ruin his life? I don't know, depends on the point of view. But definitely it will have a lasting impact.
      - bronson 13y ago
        The concern is that those policies were put in place before he became CEO. They're a part of Mozilla culture, yet he made no (publicized) attempt to reconcile his well-known personal views with them. That's a problem! He could have let the campaign bluster. A good CEO will piss a few people off anyway. It's inevitable. Eich could have let a few developers quit, but shown everyone else (especially the board!) why he's the right person for the job. Unfortunately, his recent bumbling turned a medium PR mess into a major one, and demonstrated that he might not be CEO material after all. That's my take anyway -- I don't believe the original donation was the cause of his resignation, just the trigger. There are a number of Silicon Valley companies that would hire him to a high position today. Probably not to CEO or HR of course. Or PR. But remember how many influential friends he has -- they won't be swayed by this mess. In a few months, when all this has blown over, I expect most companies will be happy to forget this ever happend. His life is far from ruined.