19 ms·

Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

• CrazedGeek 13y ago
  The previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7525198 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7525198
  • wyclif 13y ago
    Why was this posted twice on the same day? I thought moderation was supposed to catch that.
  • orik 13y ago
    Anyone willing to comment on why the previous discussion got sunk and a new one was created? Safe to assume this post will be sunk also?
    • petercooper 13y ago
      Supposedly there's something that causes threads with fierce/angry discussion to get penalized. But I imagine people were also flagging it.
    • drhayes9 13y ago
      Probably the comment-to-upvote-ratio flamewar detector. I believe that once a story gets more comments than it has upvotes its ranking gets dropped.
      • orik 13y ago
        Oh really? That's curious. I wonder why an identical URL was still allowed to be posted after such a detector has gone off.
  • pbreit 13y ago
    Looks like this post just got tanked.
• georgespencer 13y ago
  > We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. Except for the CEO, it seems. I don't think what he did is right -- it should be pretty obvious to everyone by now that history is going to look unfavourably at all of us for dragging our feet on the issue he made a bigoted stand on -- but it seems a peculiar thing to include in the blog post announcing that your CEO stepped down because of his stance on a civil rights issue.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • blatherard 13y ago
    Rest of the paragraph for understanding: "This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community." They're saying they have a culture of openness in decision-making, but chose their CEO in a way contrary to that.
  • ryanobjc 13y ago
    A CEO exists to serve the staff, the community and the world at large. Ditto for any leadership role. There is. Ton of laws and legal precident which enshrine this. Given that context, yeah the CEO doesn't get to piss of the people he is supposed to lead.
  • cmelbye 13y ago
    Is it really that difficult to understand why the CEO would be treated differently in that regard? His job is to lead the company. It's hard to do that when many Mozilla employees fundamentally disagree with his stance on how their LGBT friends, coworkers, and family members should be treated in the eyes of the law. That's just the nature of the role.
    • sparky_z 13y ago
      So then should a CEO of a company in a rural conservative place, say Alabama, be forced to step down because he supports gay marriage, just because many of his employees disagree with him on that issue?
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  • grinich 13y ago
    He was the CEO, not an engineer. In many ways, acting as the moral compass is the job.
    • __abc 13y ago
      Becoming a CEO doesn't mean you are no longer a person. More importantly, it doesn't mean the company comes before you as a person. I'm not saying that in todays environment, at least within the US that is the case. I'm just saying it should be the case. Freedom of speech swings all ways.
    • bzbarsky 13y ago
      In the case of Mozilla, you're wrong. Acting as the moral compass is Mitchell Baker's job, not the job of the CEO.
• unk 13y ago
  That escalated quickly.
• trothoun 13y ago
  This is going to come back to bite us when the political winds start blowing the other way. I'm disappointed in how short sighted our community has proven itself.
  • zrail 13y ago
    Which political winds would those be?
  • ganeumann 13y ago
    No it won't. That doesn't even make any sense.
    • scintill76 13y ago
      Maybe it doesn't make sense for there to be one "other way" for the winds to blow. But I think it's a fair point, that not standing up for free speech, could come back to bite us when one day our speech is an unpopular one and the internet hordes are screaming for our heads. Of course there are the old debates about whether money is speech, and lots of people around here that don't think this speech deserves to be protected. If you want a future as any sort of public figure, I guess you'd best not take any stand at all on any issue. At least that will work until the crowd decides that inaction is just as distasteful as taking an action they disagree with.
      • marshray 13y ago
        ... and what does it mean for our organizations that we select for leadership only from those who have never held a now-controversial opinion?
        • scintill76 13y ago
          That they are led by either: above-average forward thinkers who always form opinions on the "correct side of history", liars who cover the tracks of having incorrect opinions, spineless people who never take stands on issues, or thoughtless people who can't be bothered to form opinions on issues. Well, at least the first one is a positive attribute.
• k-mcgrady 13y ago
  Over 500 upvotes in 2 hours and the other discussion has disappeared from the front page. Is it getting flagged off or has it been removed by a mod?
  • Uehreka 13y ago
    If a post has more comments than upvotes, it gets penalized for being flame bait.
    • k-mcgrady 13y ago
      Didn't know that. There was a lot of discussion going on in that thread so that could be what happened.
    • phillmv 13y ago
      Which is a hateful policy, in my mind. It in effect says "controversial things are not worth talking about".
      • deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      • forgottenpass 13y ago
        Which is a hateful policy, in my mind. It in effect says "controversial things are not worth talking about". Hacker News is owned by a venture fund. It's not for talking, the talking is just a thing they have to allow to keep people coming back here. I'll leave the task of discerning the obvious goals of YC to run an off-brand subreddit to the reader.
  • cmelbye 13y ago
    I think the discussion on that link has probably reached a point where it's no longer constructive or useful.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • 13y ago
• FreedomFan 13y ago
  This is awful. I never thought I'd see the tech community target a person like this for a witchhunt because of what are presumably religious beliefs. Eich did nothing illegal. All he did was exercise his First Amendment right. There's no reason to believe that he would ever allow his personal beliefs to affect his decisions as a CEO. Basically, this is thoughtcrime.
• benched 13y ago
  I like to think of this issue in the most specific terms possible, rather than the most sweeping and abstract. If, for just a moment, you can set aside the bluster, it's just one guy named Brendan having a chance to evaluate whether it was really worth it to him to donate $1k to prop 8.
• azth 13y ago
  Sad that the events lead up to this.
• m52go 13y ago
  This is stupid. Progressiveness and open-mindedness go BOTH WAYS. You have to be tolerant of people with different perspectives, or you can't call yourself progressive. I don't personally agree with the stance Eich took politically, but making him step down as CEO of a company he is more than fully qualified to run? Because you don't agree with his views on gay marriage? Are you kidding me? Ludicrous. This is a huge step backward.
  • zobzu 13y ago
    note: it's his personal decision, not mozilla's
    • trothoun 13y ago
      If this really was his personal decision, then he would have written the press release, and the chairwoman would have issued a press release expressing support.
      • zobzu 13y ago
        that's if they were aware he was leaving. occured to you he might just have sent and email, published a blog post and left? ;-)
    • deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    • honksillet 13y ago
      He might have thought that it was strategically better for him personally to step down instead of actually being fire, but no one believes that this was just his personal decision. He was forced out under duress.
    • forgottenpass 13y ago
      Yup, but the decision he probably had to make was to save face and leave or get booted the fuck out.
  • 13y ago
• vsviridov 13y ago
  Thanks, Internet, for making it impossible for people to make any mistakes ever.
  • drivingmenuts 13y ago
    To be fair, Eich has never said he made a mistake. I pretty strongly disagree with his views on Prop 8, HOWEVER, I wouldn't disqualify him on those grounds. I disagree with my own boss on a lot of things much closer to home, and yet I gladly work with and for him. Occasionally, I guess I'm grownup.
  • mindstab 13y ago
    Did he ever say it was a mistake, did he ever apologize for it? no. he continually defended his right to do it and believe what he believes. That's about as far from a mistake as you can get.
    • lcnmrn 13y ago
      What's wrong to believe in something? Isn't a human right to have your own beliefs and opinions?
      • Karunamon 13y ago
        "Believing" in something and contributing money to that something are wildly different things.
        • lcnmrn 13y ago
          Private funded "churches" are a common thing all over the world. Was there ever been a problem with this? No.
          • Karunamon 13y ago
            Not what I mean. Thinking ill of people and actually contributing resources to see those people oppressed are not even in the same universe morally.
• barking 13y ago
  Baker has worked with Eich at mozilla for 15 years and says that she was unaware of Eich's views on gay marriage. She says that it has given her cause for self-reflection about how she had not noticed. Nor apparently had anyone else until they discovered his donation from 6 years ago. Sounds like he was doing a good job of separating business and politics.
• Einstalbert 13y ago
  I love people's ability to have horrible beliefs a lot more than the (now legal) ability to marry my boyfriend, so this is unfortunate to hear. I've always admired Mozilla for what it does, a lot more than other companies that get painted as homophobic (Chick Fil A?), so this is too bad. I think he was fine where he was, and his opinions on people matter as much to me as I suspect my opinions matter to anyone else.
  • karlshea 13y ago
    I'm also gay and agree completely. The whole GLAAD contingent can be a little too self-involved a lot of the time.
    • hkphooey 13y ago
      Could you please tell us more about GLAAD and the landscape of gay politics? What are the different groups and what are the major issues they (dis)agree on? What would they think of a comment like this, from a prominent British gay critic/writer ? "Most of us... are content with civil partnerships and have not pleaded for gay marriage. But every minority has within it a core of single-issue politicians and protesters who are never satisfied and always ask for more, and homosexuals, both male and female, are no exception." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10729717/Brian-Sewell-Why-I-will-never-be-converted-to-gay-marriage.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10729717/Brian-Sewe...
      • karlshea 13y ago
        It's really no different than any other special interest group. GLAAD has had lots of success in the past and done a lot of good, but now I feel like they are trying to find things to be outraged about, which has become tiring to hear about. When you're going after Dan Savage and Alec Baldwin for "saying the wrong things" when they are clearly LGBT allies I think it's time to reevaluate what's really important. Reading the one "gay news" site I follow sometimes feels like I've stepped into the Women and Women First sketches on Portlandia. I don't really see big divisions other than with the GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans sorts. Most of gay politics seems to be centered on the civil rights issues, otherwise gay people span the political spectrum like any other group. Obviously they lean more towards the Democrats, but I know a fair number of gay people that are Republican. As far as civil partnerships go, my impression (and also my opinion) is that most of us think that while it might be a step in the right direction, it's not really an acceptable solution at least in the US. There are a lot of rights civil marriage brings that civil partnerships don't. I do personally think that if the federal government decided to just not recognize marriages as anything other than a religious ceremony and searched-and-replaced "marriage" with "civil union" in all the laws I would be fine with that.
• yypark 13y ago
  Cynically: Some degree of conformity to your group is required as a CEO, including on political issues. In the tech world, supporting SOPA is a killer, but also certain other social issues, including gay marriage. If you run a big popular chicken sandwich in the South, don't start donating to pro-choice (abortion) groups either. The gay marriage issue seems to be the most socially poisonous out of all in Silicon Valley - I find the level of vitriol offputting. Would this apply to someone who was pro-2nd amendment, pro-life, or held other similarly minority views? Many people disagree on the civil rights of gun ownership or abortion, but it is not nearly as loud. Everyone paints social issues a black-white, right-wrong decision, and ignore that over half of Californians, whether their religion or personal beliefs dictated so, voted for Proposition 8. While you or I don't necessarily agree with them, we will interact with them thousands of times in our lives. It goes both ways. Just let that sink in, and realize the role that human nature and tribalism plays in addition to the loftier goals of political ideals and tolerance.
  • kenjackson 13y ago
    The thing that makes civil rights a big deal is that it affects people. If you are against gay marriage or interracial marriage, that's a statement about how you feel about people. Gun control is a lot less about how you feel about people. I think for me, and many others, gay marriage seems like such an obvious thing that I really question the ethics of one who opposes it. There is probably no other major issue in the US that I think is as obvious -- not immigration, abortion, climate change, gun control, taxes, health care, Russia, torture, etc...
    • yypark 13y ago
      Let's take affirmative action as a civil right - it's also an issue that will affect a lot of organizations: Some people consider opposing affirmative action as racist and anti-minority, and such a person unfit to be a CEO. Meanwhile others see affirmative action itself as racist (see Ward Connerly, from California Proposition 209) and sometimes discriminating against minorities too. This fundamentally leads to a similar clash - so who's right here on what the civil right is (e.g. anti-racism)? Some will say that affirmative action is not an obvious thing you'd question the ethics of a person for. But oppose or support that sort of initiative and you'll be called a racist, sexist, etc. by at least one group, based on how you feel about certain groups of people.
• pvnick 13y ago
  Really unfortunate that this happened to someone as nice and competent as Eich. His leadership would have held amazing things for Mozilla, the open web, javascript, rust, all of it. Instead he got targetted by an intollerant lynch mob that felt it had to strong-arm someone with views they didn't agree with. Sure, you could say it's a human rights issue. But ask yourself, would you consider it reasonable for Christians to target some arbitrary CEO who donated some money to planned parenthood several years ago, since that person was violating the human rights of infant children? And then for that CEO to step down in shame for because their respect for human life was in question? Of course not, that would be silly.
  • zobzu 13y ago
    yeah he had great views such as making firefox technically relevant (through rust, through asmjs, through multiprocessing, etc) and looking at mozilla's real value (users trust mozilla) except, that 2nd point became an issue with him ceo, too. sad.
  • jamesaguilar 13y ago
    Um. Yes, I would be upset if your proposed scenario happened (and similar things do happen). But these two scenarios are not quite alike, are they, considering in one case the person is doing something I believe is wrong, and in the other case something I believe is right, or at the very least acceptable. Getting together to force the dismissal of a person from a position of power based on their views is not automatically bad or good. It is bad or good depending on what the views are. Homophobic views are bad; it is good to get people dismissed from power based on those views. A woman's right to choose is good; getting people dismissed from power based on that view is bad.
    • dkhenry 13y ago
      So what your saying is as long as the angry mob agrees with you then its ok, but if they disagree with you then they are wrong.
      • jamesaguilar 13y ago
• iMark 13y ago
  I have very mixed feelings about this. I'm very glad to see people standing up to bigotry, but I'm not aware of any suggestions that Eich's feelings were affecting his job, or his employees. Eich is certainly guilty of being an asshole, and his non-apology response did little to help matters, but I can't help but think that if we removed all the CEO's who are guilty of being assholes, the herd would be considerably thinned.
• cft 13y ago
  Selecting CEOs based on ideological basis has been tried in the Soviet Union. It has not resulted in a very competitive economy.
  • ubercore 13y ago
    What? Please elaborate so I can argue with you.
    • haiduc 13y ago
      You could start by reading the tremendous life of Lysenko. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko You will see how he used politics to expend his influence on all the soviet agriculture: research, agronomy, industrial production. Not only that lead to a massive agricultural failure but as said Sakharov he was also "responsible [...] for the defamation, firing, arrest, even death, of many genuine scientists".
• zemo 13y ago
  Remember folks: Mozilla is a civil rights organization, not a technology company. They happen to operate in the technology space, but their stated purpose is to safeguard and advance civil rights, not sell technology. A potential CEO's history with regards to civil rights is absolutely relevant with respect to this organization. What Mozilla does and how Mozilla operates should not be viewed through the same lens that we would view a technology company such as Apple, Microsoft, or Oracle.
  • marshray 13y ago
    "Civil Rights Organization" is a fairly well defined concept. I searched several lists of them and didn't find Mozilla on any. I did find EFF however.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    • zemo 13y ago
      I have no idea. What I'm saying is that it doesn't, in practice, actually matter for those companies, but it does matter for Mozilla. Let's say, hypothetically, the CEO of Apple|Microsoft|Oracle had donated to Proposition 8; that doesn't affect their ability to do their job, because their job has nothing to do with protecting the civil liberties of others. Those companies purpose is to turn a profit for their owners. That is outside of the realm of ethics; it is outside of the realm of what one perceives to be good or bad. Mozilla, on the other hand, is an organization that is meant to protect people from oppression. For that reason, it is absolutely fundamental that a Mozilla leader have a provably clean civil rights record. (and I'm pretty sure that Tim Cook doesn't oppose gay rights since he's openly gay.)
      • Einstalbert 13y ago
        Tim Cook is gay? It doesn't mention that anywhere on his wikipedia page and I am pretty surprised to hear about it. Inspired, actually, as a gay person that thinks telling people your sexuality is about as relevant in most situations as telling people your favorite flavor of ice cream.
• waterlesscloud 13y ago
  So here's the part about this that deeply disturbs me. It's reasonable to assume at this point that Mozilla's next CEO will have their political opinions thoroughly vetted, overtly or covertly. In fact, it's reasonable to assume this will become a higher priority at all tech companies. Who wants to be the next Mozilla, after all? You pretty much have to do this now. And that's an awful place for us to be. It's going to go too far, because these things always do. Once you make something a corporate risk, corporations go too far in reducing it. So we're going to get the blandest, most milquetoast candidates possible. And it's going to hurt people on all sides of the political spectrum. It's also going to make people with ambitions of CEOhood hold back from any political support of anything, liberal or conservative or whatever. There's a definite chilling effect at work here. An internet mob has forced out a major company's CEO over a political issue. Yes, for many it's more than just politics. But that's not my point. My point is that it's also a political issue, and that's the lesson that's corporations are going to take here. They aren't going to limit it to issues some people see as human rights issues, they're going to apply it to all political issues, because overcompensating is what large corporations do. It's worrying, and ultimately a step in the wrong direction.
  • untog 13y ago
    It's reasonable to assume at this point that Mozilla's next CEO will have their political opinions thoroughly vetted, overtly or covertly. You say political, I say moral. And you're talking as if this hasn't happened for a long time already. If a company discovered their CEO was racist they'd fire them immediately - if not for their own moral reasons then because they're opening themselves up to a volley of lawsuits. You can bet that CEOs of any decent sized company are vetted.
    • mpyne 13y ago
      > You say political, I say moral. Do people no longer have the political right to disagree about what falls under the precept of morality though? How immoral can a corporate officer be before they become ineligible for the position? I mean, you mentioned racist CEOs, but what about CEOs who oppose affirmative action without actually changing their corporate policies regarding it? You ask one person and you'll hear that banning affirmative action is racist, ask another person and they'll tell you it's just enforcing fairness throughout. Were that it was so easy to simply reduce things in a tidy bundle by slotting them in the "morals" bucket...
• gargarplex 13y ago
  I'm just going to say it. I think this is really great news. I clapped. Eich was a totally inappropriate choice. I'm happy and no longer disgusted by the thought of using Firefox. He belongs in a little room somewhere contributing to languages, where his antisocial beliefs can be attributed to understandable engineering-personality dysfunction!
  • scintill76 13y ago
    If this seriously made you "disgusted by the thought of using Firefox", shouldn't you be disgusted by using anything Eich ever touched? Better disable Javascript in your browser -- no, compile it out! -- no, stop using any browser that ever implemented it!
  • aba_sababa 13y ago
    You realize that most of HN readers are engineers, and like most engineers, they are perfectly normal human beings without "antisocial beliefs"?
  • agapos 13y ago
    "and no longer disgusted by the thought of using Firefox" You DO know that gays also have contributed to it too, don't you? So, which one will it be? Support something that was also supported by gays, or boycott something that was supported by anti-gays?
    • deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    • gargarplex 13y ago
      the role of the CEO is that the buck stops with them. they are not only a figurehead but ultimately responsible for everything at the company. way different
• ender7 13y ago
  Two thoughts: - Brendan Eich is a great guy and I suspect would have been a great CEO and done good things for the company. - I fully respect the actions of Mozilla employees who did not want someone with Eich's opinions as their CEO. It's all very well to "respect the opinions of others" but when the opinion in question is that you should be treated as a second-class citizen, that you are not as good as other kinds of people, then that becomes very problematic if that opinion is being held by your superior. If that superior is in fact the CEO, someone who is the "face" of the company, provides leadership, and rallies the troops, then it becomes even worse. I find both statements above to be true, despite the fact that they are at odds with one another. Humans are complicated.
  • jaibot 13y ago
    These two statements don't seem contradictory; Real life things can be complicated.
  • jasonlotito 13y ago
    Really good comment. I was really at odds with this whole fiasco. I just wanted to thank you for writing it out, and saying it better than I could.
  • sxcurry 13y ago
    Well stated. I found that the opinions and actions of the Mozilla employees were what I found the most important in this case.
• ig1 13y ago
  Fundamentally as a leader of an organisation your personal public activity is related to your job. When the CEO of GoDaddy shot an elephant for fun or when the Chairman of the Co-Op was caught buying meth, these were personal activities but they nevertheless influenced how people perceived the companies they ran. A CEO needs to command the respect of those they lead, they need to attract the best talent and they need to build relationships. In all of these they will get judged based on their character which covers both their personal and professional behaviour. When the Mozilla CEO wants to meet a politician, they will take into account his personal political activity. When conferences (both tech but also political like the World Economic Forum) decide who to invite they'll consider the overall reputation of speakers, etc. It would be perfectly legitimate for Mozilla to decide that it's willing to accept the consequences of Eich's personal activity, it was crazy for them to think it wouldn't have any consequences though.
• bluefox 13y ago
  Censor thyself! For your expression of opinion may some day be used to provoke the wrath of an angry mob... Anonymity helps somewhat. If instead of donating $1000 and putting his name on a public list he'd wait a few years and donate 1000 BTC to the same cause from an undisclosed address, Mozilla would have been forced to find something else to use against him in order to remove him from that position. Maybe just ask nicely instead of pulling these shenanigans. Censor thyself. This is the world we're living in. It's just sound advice to help keep you safe. Not just from a state or a church, but from the everyday he and she, they and them.
  • lhc- 13y ago
    If the opinion you're expressing is hateful and akin to calling fellow humans second hand citizens, then yes, you should probably censor that. Really, you should better yourself, but if not, then you probably want to be careful about making such statements in public. Consider if he had donated to a charity trying to deny marriage rights to non-white people. I don't think you'd see much defense of his position.
    • bluefox 13y ago
      You're saying that if an opinion is such-and-such, shut up. All I'm saying, is that the antecedent is irrelevant. You should shut up either way. Why? You have an opinion. It is not shared by all people. In circles where your opinion is disagreeable to many, it can be very easy to rally them against you. We've not (yet?) progressed beyond this. You may one day find yourself in such a circle, or near it. And one day your expression of that opinion, "hateful" or not, may be used against you. So whatever your opinion is, keep it to yourself. It's a jungle out there. I do not envy Brendan Eich.
  • jrockway 13y ago
    I think he got what he wanted. He was the CEO of a tech company in San Francisco. If he's the kind of person that is willing to spend his own money to lobby for decreased human rights for a certain group of people that widely exists in his organization and community, he probably picked the wrong job. A lot of people are saying, "he made one mistake, and now he's paying too high a price." Let me ask you: have you ever mistakenly donated $1000 to anyone? Didn't think so.
• happyscrappy 13y ago
  Yes, the PC crowd won but do we have to pollute HN with endless stories about it?
• matthewmacleod 13y ago
  Can I just be blunt? Eich has absolute freedom to say what he wants. He's free to campaign against same-sex marriage. He could campaign against interracial marriage, if he wanted to. Not a problem, and I'm deeply glad that this belief is deeply ingrained in US culture. But the freedom to advocate any idea you want does not give an individual the right to be free of criticism from others. The thing that has happened here is pretty simple: - Eich was promoted to a highly visible community leadership position. - Mozilla as a community organisation has a general policy of promoting diversity and equality in software development. - Eich's personal views are not compatible with that position, and he was previously an active campaigner against some civil rights for LGBT people – a position which caused actual damage to members of the organisation he was CEO of, and others in the community it is a leader in. - Eich failed to convincingly apologise, or explain and reassure the community that his views were acceptable. - Members of the community and Mozilla who were directly affected by his actions, others who are their peers, and other people in the community in general, felt that Eich was, as a result, not a suitable candidate for such an important and visible position. - Those people made their objections known, and Eich failed to control the controversy, eventually resigning. I don't really know what else could be expected in this case. A bunch of people objected to his views (which is totally their right, considering those views were actively harmful to them), and he/Mozilla did not believe that his continued presence in the role would be effective. Is the argument that we should completely ignore the personal views of people in important and visible leadership roles? That seems unrealistic, and would quickly fall down when presented in a slightly different light. I'm deeply saddened by this whole affair — not because Eich has resigned, as much as I think he would have been an effective CEO, but because this discussion has to happen in the first place, and because prop 8 was even a thing. AT least we'll be over all of this nonsense in a few years.
  • scintill76 13y ago
    > a position which caused actual damage [citation needed]. Also, he supported a cause that the majority of the voters did. How can you prove that withholding his $1k or whatever, or even him advocating for the opposite position, would have changed the outcome of the vote, thus averting "actual damage" to people? Sorry if this is overly snarky, nitpicky, emotionally charged. I guess every comment in these threads is, pretty much.
• Karunamon 13y ago
  Wow. So instead of directly repudiating his previous actions, he chooses to step down? This personally proves to me that he's both a bigot and unfit to be a CEO. If he'd have just directly apologized for the donation, we wouldn't be here having this discussion today.
• arcaner 13y ago
  A letter I sent to Brendan: http://www.arcaner.com/2014/04/03/thank-you-letter-to-brendan-eich/ http://www.arcaner.com/2014/04/03/thank-you-letter-to-brenda...
• declan 13y ago
  I just read this, which Brendan Eich wrote last week, and proved insufficient to keep the job: https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ I am deeply honored and humbled by the CEO role. I’m also grateful for the messages of support. At the same time, I know there are concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla. I hope to lay those concerns to rest, first by making a set of commitments to you. More important, I want to lay them to rest by actions and results... I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion...
• xacaxulu 13y ago
  While I disagree with his privately held position on marriage, I wouldn't necessarily imagine that his private views would translate into his public position. Obviously he has been an amazing and competent thought leader in this industry and somehow his personal views haven't seemed to surface in the past. And we can't even speak about his thought process behind his financial support. He didn't use company funds for it. I'm inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt that they can make competent, unbiased and professional decisions, not based on their privately held beliefs. I don't think he would have made it this far if he was just out hating on every homosexual he came across. Let's extend the same professional consideration to people that we ask for ourselves.
• austinhutch 13y ago
  This wasn't going to end any other way. If his positions on gay marriage could be contained and isolated from the business then it wouldn't be an issue. Once OKCupid stopped serving those using Firefox, it was that much more clear that either he would have to concede on his political beliefs or that he would be removed.
• AndrewBissell 13y ago
  This discussion by Jonathan Rauch of the "Ender's Game" boycott seems particularly relevant to this situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFVRRP-J9mI#t=33m57s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFVRRP-J9mI#t=33m57s tl;dw: The "agree with us, on pain of losing your job" tack may not be a good one for supporters of gay rights to take.
• thankgoodness 13y ago
  He stepped down at the board's invitation. AKA He was fired. (1) They can promulgate the idea that this was a mutual decision, but at the end of the day, anyone who knows Brendan knows he would never step down voluntarily. Brendan's defining traits are his obstinacy and his ego about technology. Imagine saying only the language that YOU invented can be used for the web. Oh and it's single threaded only, (gee that's the future!) and oh that 3D technology that Microsoft has had working since the early 90s still (WebGL in 2014) doesn't work for anything non-trivial. Mozilla and Brendan Eich parting ways permanently is the best thing that could ever happen to Mozilla. (2) (1) This is a fact. (2) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5226309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5226309
• a-nikolaev 13y ago
  He donated some money to support his believes. By doing so, he did not do anything bad to anyone. If you want to have a civil discussion on any topic, boths sides should be able to express their views, otherwise this is unfair.
• znowi 13y ago
  Well done the progressive community of bullies. The awful gay hater stepped down. We can all rejoice now. The witch-hunt that unfolded was unfortunate to witness. People overheard "against gay marriage" and this lit up the fire. Few cared to actually look into the story. One donation was enough to paint him as an ardent homophobic. Despite the impeccable track record of 15 years in Mozilla (including 8 years as CTO). I respect this person, despite his non-respectable belief in gay marriage.
• cpher 13y ago
  What's the next civil right? Health care! It's only a matter of time before someone is berated and chastised into resigning from a top post because he/she doesn't believe that society should pay for their health care. After that?
• hellbanTHIS 13y ago
  Putting aside moral arguments for a moment, if Eich didn't voluntarily step down Mozilla may be in a bit of a fix, as per California Labor Code - Section 1101: >No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: >(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office. >(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees. >- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/LAB/1/d2/3/5/s1101#sthash.uT6Lmptj.dpuf http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/LAB/1/d2/3/5/s1101#sthash...