5 ms·

I thought Scalzi's take on the issue was one of the more objective that I've seen lately. He's correct, of course: as a private organization, Mozilla reserves

I thought Scalzi's take on the issue was one of the more objective that I've seen lately. He's correct, of course: as a private organization, Mozilla reserves the right to hire and fire (which would have been Eich's fate had he not resigned) as they see fit as long as such action does not run afoul of state or federal labor laws....which this does not. Mozilla was concerned about their appearance in the public eye, and chose to align themselves with one particular side of the issue. Again, as is their right. Eich was not denied any First Amendment right, as the U.S. Government was not involved. But let's not kid ourselves: those vigorously cheering Eich's departure aren't considering the whole picture. If this were 1950, Mozilla would be chock-full of white men eager to hustle the CEO out the door were it disclosed that he was gay or had donated to a Socialist/Communist organization. "Tolerance" had nothing to do with what happened to Eich. This was the Jacobin mob in action.

devindotcom 13y ago
Opposing equal civil rights for gay people isn't really equatable in any ways to Communism. It's far more accurate to compare it to the 60s, when people demonstrated against Jim Crow laws, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws.
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  If you think my point is that gay rights is like Communism, you've either missed my point or are trying to derail the conversation. I specifically chose support of a communist group (or being gay) in the 50s. Being sympathetic to or being a member of an unpopular group in this case isn't as easy as observing somebody's skin color. It's not about separate water fountains, schools and bus seats, which are all physical manifestations of bigotry. By distancing themselves from Eich, Mozilla demonstrated that they were more interested in siding with what was popular rather than affirming any interest in real diversity: diversity of thought. Because isn't that what the diversity movement is supposed to be all about?
  - devindotcom 13y ago
    No, I meant that the situations, origins, meanings, and style of opposition are very different. And if you don't think that there are physical manifestations of bigotry against gay people, I don't know what to tell you. Furthermore, gay people have had to actively hide the physical manifestations of their sexuality in order to avoid such bigotry for centuries. This isn't the "diversity movement." It is a protest in support of equal civil rights for a historically and currently oppressed minority.
corry 13y ago
I agree with your take and Scalzi's take: it had to play out this way given the stakeholders. What's more interesting (and I think your last statement eludes to that) is the lack of tolerance for Eich's views. The 'paradox of tolerance'[1]: To what degree should we tolerate others' viewpoints, even when those very viewpoints are intolerant? Also see 'European immigration and Islam'. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
gcp 13y ago
Mozilla reserves the right to hire and fire (which would have been Eich's fate had he not resigned) On what do you base that assertion? There certainly was no indication for this, and the board claimed the opposite.
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  I take the board's statements with a block of salt. These are, after all, the very people who appointed Eich in the first place. The company has insisted that Eich wasn't forced to resign due to employee pressure. But why else would he resign? Eich has been with Mozilla since the beginning, serving as an architect and CTO. He stated "under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader." Why? Because those whom he would lead refuse to be led by him, the organizations he would work with would refuse to work with him, or a combination of both. If this were the case, then in the company's best interest the board would have to fire Eich. It was inevitable.
Osmose 13y ago
> Mozilla reserves the right to hire and fire (which would have been Eich's fate > had he not resigned) While I agree that Scalzi's post is a much more objective take on the events, you're false on this point. Brendan resigned of his own accord, and the board even tried to get him to stay on in another role even if he stepped down from CEO, but Brendan declined because he thought it would be better for Mozilla if he didn't. (See https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...)
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  And why did he resign? Mozilla had become a hostile work environment for him. How would have staying on changed any of that? The die had been cast.

devindotcom 13y ago

Opposing equal civil rights for gay people isn't really equatable in any ways to Communism. It's far more accurate to compare it to the 60s, when people demonstrated against Jim Crow laws, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws.

MrZongle2 13y ago
If you think my point is that gay rights is like Communism, you've either missed my point or are trying to derail the conversation. I specifically chose support of a communist group (or being gay) in the 50s. Being sympathetic to or being a member of an unpopular group in this case isn't as easy as observing somebody's skin color. It's not about separate water fountains, schools and bus seats, which are all physical manifestations of bigotry. By distancing themselves from Eich, Mozilla demonstrated that they were more interested in siding with what was popular rather than affirming any interest in real diversity: diversity of thought. Because isn't that what the diversity movement is supposed to be all about?
- devindotcom 13y ago
  No, I meant that the situations, origins, meanings, and style of opposition are very different. And if you don't think that there are physical manifestations of bigotry against gay people, I don't know what to tell you. Furthermore, gay people have had to actively hide the physical manifestations of their sexuality in order to avoid such bigotry for centuries. This isn't the "diversity movement." It is a protest in support of equal civil rights for a historically and currently oppressed minority.

corry 13y ago

I agree with your take and Scalzi's take: it had to play out this way given the stakeholders. What's more interesting (and I think your last statement eludes to that) is the lack of tolerance for Eich's views. The 'paradox of tolerance'[1]: To what degree should we tolerate others' viewpoints, even when those very viewpoints are intolerant? Also see 'European immigration and Islam'. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

gcp 13y ago

Mozilla reserves the right to hire and fire (which would have been Eich's fate had he not resigned) On what do you base that assertion? There certainly was no indication for this, and the board claimed the opposite.

MrZongle2 13y ago
I take the board's statements with a block of salt. These are, after all, the very people who appointed Eich in the first place. The company has insisted that Eich wasn't forced to resign due to employee pressure. But why else would he resign? Eich has been with Mozilla since the beginning, serving as an architect and CTO. He stated "under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader." Why? Because those whom he would lead refuse to be led by him, the organizations he would work with would refuse to work with him, or a combination of both. If this were the case, then in the company's best interest the board would have to fire Eich. It was inevitable.

Osmose 13y ago

> Mozilla reserves the right to hire and fire (which would have been Eich's fate > had he not resigned) While I agree that Scalzi's post is a much more objective take on the events, you're false on this point. Brendan resigned of his own accord, and the board even tried to get him to stay on in another role even if he stepped down from CEO, but Brendan declined because he thought it would be better for Mozilla if he didn't. (See https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...)

MrZongle2 13y ago
And why did he resign? Mozilla had become a hostile work environment for him. How would have staying on changed any of that? The die had been cast.