5 ms·

It is absolutely reasonable for gay employees to be concerned. As CEO of a company guides company policy about a lot of things that have nothing to do with wri

It is absolutely reasonable for gay employees to be concerned. As CEO of a company guides company policy about a lot of things that have nothing to do with writing code such as health benefits.

smsm42 13y ago
Which specifically policy of Mozilla has any relation to gay marriage in California?
- x0x0 13y ago
  an obvious policy: since CA doesn't have gay marriage, it's optional to offer partners of gay employees health benefits
  - smsm42 13y ago
    Are you sure it is optional? [1] In any case Mozilla does offer them. So what exactly is the problem? What would change with or without gay marriage recognized by California? If anything, this shows that while Eich may be opposed to gay marriage, he is not at all opposed to equal benefits (unless of course you could point to instance where he tried to remove that policy). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#Wholesale_expansion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Califo...
  - Aloha 13y ago
    California does have gay marriage now, Prop 8 was overturned on appeal.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      True, but a) Mozilla had benefits equality all along anyway, and b) California moved to equalize benefits way before prop 8 was overturned, see my link above or look it up - for almost all matters except calling it "marriage", domestic partnerships in California have the same meaning as "marriage" for about a decade now. The whole hoopla seems to be exclusively about calling it "marriage", not about any benefits or any economic or legal matters.
      - Aloha 13y ago
        The only issue I had with domestic partnerships was the lack of federal recognition, and the lack of universal recognition by other states.
      - mkr-hn 13y ago
        A two class system leaves room to give one class new and exclusive benefits.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    If that were true then would you consider it right to oust Mr Eich because the company in which he only just became CEO abides by the law? Wouldn't it be more mature, and democratic, to request that the company adjusted to allow people equal benefits regardless of their beliefs about sexuality and then take action if they refuse.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      Oh, it would be, only Mozilla already has equal benefits. So they can't adjust something they've been doing all along.
Aqueous 13y ago
The link between any particular issue and what Eich's day-to-day responsibility would have been can be made as tenuously as we want. I could argue six-degrees-of-separation-style that every belief he held is relevant to his position. The basic point remains: we shouldn't be punishing people for holding beliefs that we disagree with, or coerce them into renouncing their disagreement in order to remain in our good graces. That's not democracy and it's not how you win a policy argument. No matter how right or wrong the belief in question is, such policing creates a hostile environment where people are afraid to argue, debate, and say what they really think.
- michaelbuddy 13y ago
  I'm not sure that punishing is the right word here. people who did what they did, whether it be his board leaving, or people uninstalling firefox,or op-ed letters or forum comments. All that is not punishment, that is nobody was deprived of anything. Negative public sentiment is a tough thing. But I think that it actually represents democracy quite well. Democracy can do the morally wrong thing, it can keep a minority enslaved for example.
- DarkIye 13y ago
  The real question here is whether democracy (i.e. the vote) is taken after influence games have been played out and resolved, or before. I think the vote should be taken after influence has been applied, because I think part of what defines a person is their influence (it is perhaps the most important part, especially in questions of politics like this one).
- katbyte 13y ago
  > No matter how right or wrong the belief in question is, such policing creates a hostile environment where people are afraid to argue, debate, and say what they really think. What if his belief was the blacks should not be allowed to get married? would you have the same opinion on this then? Would there even be a discussion?
  - microscopic 13y ago
    That is the problem with the ad hominem culture in America. Just because a person is racist/whatever doesn't necessarily mean that s/he is a bad person. We should actually be open to people who have these ideas. We don't have to hurt people to change them. An environment where people are allowed to debate over even the most atrocious ideas is much more productive and inline with what the ideal democracy is. I would have loved if Mozilla had an internal, open, philosophically rigorous, discussion that employees would participate in. Brendan would be forced to change his mind, not by force, but by reasoning. Unfortunately, this is just my rosy way of thinking.

It is absolutely reasonable for gay employees to be concerned. As CEO of a company guides company policy about a lot of things that have nothing to do with writing code such as health benefits.

smsm42 13y ago

Which specifically policy of Mozilla has any relation to gay marriage in California?

x0x0 13y ago
an obvious policy: since CA doesn't have gay marriage, it's optional to offer partners of gay employees health benefits
- smsm42 13y ago
  Are you sure it is optional? [1] In any case Mozilla does offer them. So what exactly is the problem? What would change with or without gay marriage recognized by California? If anything, this shows that while Eich may be opposed to gay marriage, he is not at all opposed to equal benefits (unless of course you could point to instance where he tried to remove that policy). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#Wholesale_expansion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Califo...
- Aloha 13y ago
  California does have gay marriage now, Prop 8 was overturned on appeal.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    True, but a) Mozilla had benefits equality all along anyway, and b) California moved to equalize benefits way before prop 8 was overturned, see my link above or look it up - for almost all matters except calling it "marriage", domestic partnerships in California have the same meaning as "marriage" for about a decade now. The whole hoopla seems to be exclusively about calling it "marriage", not about any benefits or any economic or legal matters.
    - Aloha 13y ago
      The only issue I had with domestic partnerships was the lack of federal recognition, and the lack of universal recognition by other states.
    - mkr-hn 13y ago
      A two class system leaves room to give one class new and exclusive benefits.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  If that were true then would you consider it right to oust Mr Eich because the company in which he only just became CEO abides by the law? Wouldn't it be more mature, and democratic, to request that the company adjusted to allow people equal benefits regardless of their beliefs about sexuality and then take action if they refuse.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    Oh, it would be, only Mozilla already has equal benefits. So they can't adjust something they've been doing all along.

Aqueous 13y ago

The link between any particular issue and what Eich's day-to-day responsibility would have been can be made as tenuously as we want. I could argue six-degrees-of-separation-style that every belief he held is relevant to his position. The basic point remains: we shouldn't be punishing people for holding beliefs that we disagree with, or coerce them into renouncing their disagreement in order to remain in our good graces. That's not democracy and it's not how you win a policy argument. No matter how right or wrong the belief in question is, such policing creates a hostile environment where people are afraid to argue, debate, and say what they really think.

michaelbuddy 13y ago
I'm not sure that punishing is the right word here. people who did what they did, whether it be his board leaving, or people uninstalling firefox,or op-ed letters or forum comments. All that is not punishment, that is nobody was deprived of anything. Negative public sentiment is a tough thing. But I think that it actually represents democracy quite well. Democracy can do the morally wrong thing, it can keep a minority enslaved for example.
DarkIye 13y ago
The real question here is whether democracy (i.e. the vote) is taken after influence games have been played out and resolved, or before. I think the vote should be taken after influence has been applied, because I think part of what defines a person is their influence (it is perhaps the most important part, especially in questions of politics like this one).
katbyte 13y ago
> No matter how right or wrong the belief in question is, such policing creates a hostile environment where people are afraid to argue, debate, and say what they really think. What if his belief was the blacks should not be allowed to get married? would you have the same opinion on this then? Would there even be a discussion?
- microscopic 13y ago
  That is the problem with the ad hominem culture in America. Just because a person is racist/whatever doesn't necessarily mean that s/he is a bad person. We should actually be open to people who have these ideas. We don't have to hurt people to change them. An environment where people are allowed to debate over even the most atrocious ideas is much more productive and inline with what the ideal democracy is. I would have loved if Mozilla had an internal, open, philosophically rigorous, discussion that employees would participate in. Brendan would be forced to change his mind, not by force, but by reasoning. Unfortunately, this is just my rosy way of thinking.