7 ms·

There's two sides to that -- the first is that, yes, he absolutely has the right to hold any opinion he wants to, no matter how noxious I or others may find the

by HillRat 13y ago

There's two sides to that -- the first is that, yes, he absolutely has the right to hold any opinion he wants to, no matter how noxious I or others may find them. To paraphrase Hall on Voltaire, I'll defend to the death their right to be assholes. (Full disclosure: pro- gay marriage, anti-Prop 8, not a CA resident, so doesn't really affect me.) On the other hand, there's no absolute right to be a public-facing CEO, and it's not unreasonable for the public to name-and-shame companies for their stances on public issues and the people they choose as corporate leaders. In some cases, this means right-wing activists boycotting and gay-marriage advocates praising Target for same-sex wedding registry ads; in others, it's blue-staters deciding not to eat at Chik-Fil-A for its right-wing political donations, and red-staters buying that 24-piece combo for the exact same reason. Personally, I do think that Eich did all the right things as far as policy and PR goes, and I'm actually a bit sorry that he's stepping down. I think that the real sin here was not his political donations, it was the fact that he and MoCo didn't make at least cursory efforts to wargame out the possible PR issues that they ran into, which meant they were unprepared to deal with the firestorms. It's obvious that a significant number of board members weren't happy with Eich's promotion on strategic grounds, and the Prop 8 issue was just the icing on the big poisonous cake of bad publicity. Generally speaking, if you're the CEO, the company should be in the news, not you, and Eich was getting hammered left and right.

jbooth 13y ago
To piggyback, there's an additional difference between being a public-facing CEO of, say, McDonald's, Exxon or Apple, and being the public-facing CEO of a non-profit which exists due to the donations of primarily liberal and libertarian internet people. The prior case might cost them a little revenue due to boycotts but if the person's effective, you can make a case for 'private views' and 'shareholder value'. When your whole company is an activist platform, it's a bit harder to say that political positions of the CEO don't matter.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  I thought mozilla exists mainly because of google?
- marshray 13y ago
  "non-profit which exists due to the donations of primarily liberal and libertarian internet people" Citation needed.
- opendais 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation#Financing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation#Financing Pretty sure that is incorrect.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    The Mozilla Foundation is funded by donations and "search royalties". Since 2005, the vast majority of funds have come from Google Inc....Mozilla Corporation [is] "a taxable subsidiary that serves the non-profit, public benefit goals of its parent, the Mozilla Foundation" Mozilla =~= Google
- wwweston 13y ago
  > When your whole company is an activist platform, it's a bit harder to say that political positions of the CEO don't matter. I see the point that it's different for a non-profit than it might be for a for-profit, but I'd also think differences in primary focus matter too. If I was looking at the conversation over the last week as a representative, I'd suppose that Mozilla is more of an LGBT standard-bearer than an open-web advocacy group. One could argue that's a ridiculously narrow window to focus on, and that's probably correct, but it's no more narrow a focus than that turned on Eich's donations vs the whole of his behavior and what he had to offer as CEO.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- bzbarsky 13y ago
  On the topic of being an "activist platform", I strongly suggest you read <http://incisive.nu/2014/thinking-about-mozilla/> http://incisive.nu/2014/thinking-about-mozilla/>, and in particular the paragraph starting "Several of my colleagues have called for Brendan’s resignation. I have not done so ..."
- DatBear 13y ago
  >being the public-facing CEO of a non-profit He was the CEO of the for-profit Mozilla Corporation, not a non-profit.
crassus 13y ago
This is exactly how opinion worked in East Germany. You didn't have to be a communist, but if you weren't you would never work again. We have the exact same protection for political expression as East Germany. That's freedom? "The Lives of Others" was a warning, not an instruction manual.
- jbooth 13y ago
  Well, at least you didn't mention Hitler. Mozilla made a business decision that the guy was a liability for a public non-profit. That's capitalism, not totalitarianism.
  - three14 13y ago
    The East Germany comparison made sense and your comment about capitalism also made sense. Mozilla itself might very well have simply made a reasonable business decision. Many comments in this thread, though, say that it's fine to have an unpopular opinion as long as you don't mind the consequences. It's fine for the people who disagree with you to punish you for having your opinion. That certainly invites the comparison with East Germany. The Hitler thing is uncalled for.
    - dalke 13y ago
      "I don't want to do business with a company which has Eich as a CEO" is rather not the same as the Stasi. It's closer to US sentiment during the Red Scare of "I won't do business with any company which employes a member of the Communist Party." (The US still has a number of anti-Communist laws still on the books that I consider reprehensible.) Or even closer to people in Northern Ireland still who will choose or avoid a Catholic/Protestant-owned store because of strong Unionist/Nationalist beliefs, even when the store itself has no basis. Or a boycott on a chain of stores in the US where the owner contributes to anti-immigration policies, even when the chain itself has taken no political stance. These later ones fall squarely under a right of free association. The East Germany comparison does not. That's why this comparison is malarkey.
      - 13y ago
zorpner 13y ago
This is a terrific comment, and I couldn't agree more -- regardless of Eich's personal views and how they made people feel, the fact that he and Mozilla didn't have statements, interviews, and a PR plan in place for something so obvious is reason enough that he shouldn't be CEO. End of story.
- watwut 13y ago
  He was CEO for two weeks. If Mozila would have statements, interviews, and a PR plan prepared, they would have to be done before he became CEO.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - zorpner 13y ago
    That's exactly what I'm saying, that these preparations should have been made prior the announcement. His consideration for and acceptance of the role happened prior to the announcement, presumably. This should have been a part of whatever transition plan they had in place.
  - zimpenfish 13y ago
    They knew about his donation two years before he became CEO. It's not like it was discovered 5 minutes after his appointment - they had plenty of warning that this might be a PR shitstorm. There's no excuse for them to be this unprepared.
filmgirlcw 13y ago
I'm in 100% agreement. Moreover, I think that this was made worse by the fact that not only was there no pre-planning to address the PR issues, which they had to know about (and if they didn't when this already came up, the entire board needs to go, period, b/c that's just amateur hour), Eich's refusal to even explain his position made it hard to not see him as a hate-monger. If he had defended or explained his position on the basis of religious beliefs -- this might not have ended any differently, but it would at least give the community context for why he feels the way he feels. Not having that context and his outright refusal to elaborate on it, only made it worse.
bzbarsky 13y ago
> It's obvious that a significant number of board members weren't happy I'm aware of one board member that's true for. Note that the Wall Street Journal blog post that everyone has been quoting on the board member issue pretty much just got the story wrong. Two of the board members had been meaning to move on to other things for a while and just stuck it out to the end of the CEO search, since that's one of the board's key functions.
chc 13y ago
> It's obvious that a significant number of board members weren't happy with Eich's promotion on strategic grounds What makes this obvious? I haven't heard any statement to that effect from any of them.
tzs 13y ago
> It's obvious that a significant number of board members weren't happy with Eich's promotion on strategic grounds How is it obvious? The board appoints the CEO. It's true that several board members left shortly after the appointment, and some outsiders have claimed that it was in protest, but I've not seen any confirmation of that. At least some of the ones leaving must have approved, because the remaining board members, I believe, do not have a majority. I've seen other claims that these people had already planned to leave, and were just staying around to finish the CEO search. Some evidence for this is the fact that the people who left also announced their next major engagements. People who quite on short notice in protest generally don't know where they are going next.

by HillRat 13y ago

jbooth 13y ago

To piggyback, there's an additional difference between being a public-facing CEO of, say, McDonald's, Exxon or Apple, and being the public-facing CEO of a non-profit which exists due to the donations of primarily liberal and libertarian internet people. The prior case might cost them a little revenue due to boycotts but if the person's effective, you can make a case for 'private views' and 'shareholder value'. When your whole company is an activist platform, it's a bit harder to say that political positions of the CEO don't matter.

jiggy2011 13y ago
I thought mozilla exists mainly because of google?
marshray 13y ago
"non-profit which exists due to the donations of primarily liberal and libertarian internet people" Citation needed.
opendais 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation#Financing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation#Financing Pretty sure that is incorrect.
- 001sky 13y ago
  The Mozilla Foundation is funded by donations and "search royalties". Since 2005, the vast majority of funds have come from Google Inc....Mozilla Corporation [is] "a taxable subsidiary that serves the non-profit, public benefit goals of its parent, the Mozilla Foundation" Mozilla =~= Google
wwweston 13y ago
> When your whole company is an activist platform, it's a bit harder to say that political positions of the CEO don't matter. I see the point that it's different for a non-profit than it might be for a for-profit, but I'd also think differences in primary focus matter too. If I was looking at the conversation over the last week as a representative, I'd suppose that Mozilla is more of an LGBT standard-bearer than an open-web advocacy group. One could argue that's a ridiculously narrow window to focus on, and that's probably correct, but it's no more narrow a focus than that turned on Eich's donations vs the whole of his behavior and what he had to offer as CEO.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
bzbarsky 13y ago
On the topic of being an "activist platform", I strongly suggest you read <http://incisive.nu/2014/thinking-about-mozilla/> http://incisive.nu/2014/thinking-about-mozilla/>, and in particular the paragraph starting "Several of my colleagues have called for Brendan’s resignation. I have not done so ..."
DatBear 13y ago
>being the public-facing CEO of a non-profit He was the CEO of the for-profit Mozilla Corporation, not a non-profit.

crassus 13y ago

This is exactly how opinion worked in East Germany. You didn't have to be a communist, but if you weren't you would never work again. We have the exact same protection for political expression as East Germany. That's freedom? "The Lives of Others" was a warning, not an instruction manual.

jbooth 13y ago
Well, at least you didn't mention Hitler. Mozilla made a business decision that the guy was a liability for a public non-profit. That's capitalism, not totalitarianism.
- three14 13y ago
  The East Germany comparison made sense and your comment about capitalism also made sense. Mozilla itself might very well have simply made a reasonable business decision. Many comments in this thread, though, say that it's fine to have an unpopular opinion as long as you don't mind the consequences. It's fine for the people who disagree with you to punish you for having your opinion. That certainly invites the comparison with East Germany. The Hitler thing is uncalled for.
  - dalke 13y ago
    "I don't want to do business with a company which has Eich as a CEO" is rather not the same as the Stasi. It's closer to US sentiment during the Red Scare of "I won't do business with any company which employes a member of the Communist Party." (The US still has a number of anti-Communist laws still on the books that I consider reprehensible.) Or even closer to people in Northern Ireland still who will choose or avoid a Catholic/Protestant-owned store because of strong Unionist/Nationalist beliefs, even when the store itself has no basis. Or a boycott on a chain of stores in the US where the owner contributes to anti-immigration policies, even when the chain itself has taken no political stance. These later ones fall squarely under a right of free association. The East Germany comparison does not. That's why this comparison is malarkey.
    - 13y ago

zorpner 13y ago

This is a terrific comment, and I couldn't agree more -- regardless of Eich's personal views and how they made people feel, the fact that he and Mozilla didn't have statements, interviews, and a PR plan in place for something so obvious is reason enough that he shouldn't be CEO. End of story.

watwut 13y ago
He was CEO for two weeks. If Mozila would have statements, interviews, and a PR plan prepared, they would have to be done before he became CEO.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- zorpner 13y ago
  That's exactly what I'm saying, that these preparations should have been made prior the announcement. His consideration for and acceptance of the role happened prior to the announcement, presumably. This should have been a part of whatever transition plan they had in place.
- zimpenfish 13y ago
  They knew about his donation two years before he became CEO. It's not like it was discovered 5 minutes after his appointment - they had plenty of warning that this might be a PR shitstorm. There's no excuse for them to be this unprepared.

filmgirlcw 13y ago

I'm in 100% agreement. Moreover, I think that this was made worse by the fact that not only was there no pre-planning to address the PR issues, which they had to know about (and if they didn't when this already came up, the entire board needs to go, period, b/c that's just amateur hour), Eich's refusal to even explain his position made it hard to not see him as a hate-monger. If he had defended or explained his position on the basis of religious beliefs -- this might not have ended any differently, but it would at least give the community context for why he feels the way he feels. Not having that context and his outright refusal to elaborate on it, only made it worse.

bzbarsky 13y ago

> It's obvious that a significant number of board members weren't happy I'm aware of one board member that's true for. Note that the Wall Street Journal blog post that everyone has been quoting on the board member issue pretty much just got the story wrong. Two of the board members had been meaning to move on to other things for a while and just stuck it out to the end of the CEO search, since that's one of the board's key functions.

chc 13y ago

> It's obvious that a significant number of board members weren't happy with Eich's promotion on strategic grounds What makes this obvious? I haven't heard any statement to that effect from any of them.

tzs 13y ago

> It's obvious that a significant number of board members weren't happy with Eich's promotion on strategic grounds How is it obvious? The board appoints the CEO. It's true that several board members left shortly after the appointment, and some outsiders have claimed that it was in protest, but I've not seen any confirmation of that. At least some of the ones leaving must have approved, because the remaining board members, I believe, do not have a majority. I've seen other claims that these people had already planned to leave, and were just staying around to finish the CEO search. Some evidence for this is the fact that the people who left also announced their next major engagements. People who quite on short notice in protest generally don't know where they are going next.