3 ms·

> I'm not going to get into a debate about whether Prop 8 was right or wrong. Take a look at why you wrote that statement, and you start to understand why Eich

> I'm not going to get into a debate about whether Prop 8 was right or wrong. Take a look at why you wrote that statement, and you start to understand why Eich didn't want to make it about that either. Also take a look at what he did say: https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ if we're going to talk about his ability to phrase statements. EDIT: downvoted into fairly negative territory for linking to Eich's statement and pointing out that prop 8 discussion is hazardous? Really? That reinforces the point, not contradicts it.

danso 13y ago
Sure...but I'm not being considered for a position as CEO. Which means, among other things, that I'm not the person who makes the executive decisions that governs the company's policies and initiatives. Part of the privilege of being a peon is that I don't have to explain what I think because no one cares. Part of the problem of being CEO is that people do care...heavy is the head that wears the crown, and such. I've read his statement, and his interviews. What in his statement contradicts my assertions? I think Eich was a sincere supporter of Prop 8, now and today, and he has said nothing to step back from that. Which means that people who are bothered by Prop 8 should not seem out of place to ask him for an answer. While we're looking at his other statements, check this one out: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-refuses-to-quit http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ce... > Eich refused to be drawn on whether he would donate to a Proposition 8 style campaign again in the future. “I don't want to do hypotheticals,” he said. “I haven't thought about that issue and I really don't want to speculate because it's not relevant.” I'm not a CEO, and I'm not someone who has to deal with Eich being my CEO. But I can understand why people who are in the latter situation may not simply settle for: "Well, if Eich says it's not relevant to how he'll act as CEO, then it must not be relevant".
- wwweston 13y ago
  > Part of the problem of being CEO is that people do care...heavy is the head that wears the crown, and such. Which is to say, you agree that someone might have a reason to avoid getting into discussing prop 8 itself, you agree that the magnification factor exists for a CEO (and therefore that Eich has a greater reason to avoid making the discussion about prop 8 than you do) -- you just think he also has a correspondingly greater need to address, because this is about governance. Right? > Which means, among other things, that I'm not the person who makes the executive decisions that governs the company's policies and initiatives. If the issue was Mozilla governance, it might be reasonable enough to wonder and perhaps even speculate about what Eich's support of prop8 meant for that in a vacuum of other information (though corresponding a donation to motivations is hardly a transparent act). But there really wasn't a vacuum. Anyone who cared to see what an Eich-influenced Mozilla would be like doesn't have to speculate based on his prop 8 donation, they just need to look at the organization's history, given that he's been a significant influence since day 1. Looking at the internal support -- even from people who are clearly on the other side of prop8 from Eich -- also says something. And the statement I linked to gave the world very clear guidance about his intentions on that front and easy standards based on which to judge him. In other words, the governance issues were pretty clearly addressed. If this wasn't about governance of Mozilla, why does Eich have any more obligation than you do to provide a statment? > I've read his statement, and his interviews. What in his statement contradicts my assertions? That he doesn't know how to make a clear statement treating the relevant issues, or that his defenders treat him as if he's like that.

danso 13y ago

Sure...but I'm not being considered for a position as CEO. Which means, among other things, that I'm not the person who makes the executive decisions that governs the company's policies and initiatives. Part of the privilege of being a peon is that I don't have to explain what I think because no one cares. Part of the problem of being CEO is that people do care...heavy is the head that wears the crown, and such. I've read his statement, and his interviews. What in his statement contradicts my assertions? I think Eich was a sincere supporter of Prop 8, now and today, and he has said nothing to step back from that. Which means that people who are bothered by Prop 8 should not seem out of place to ask him for an answer. While we're looking at his other statements, check this one out: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-refuses-to-quit http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ce... > Eich refused to be drawn on whether he would donate to a Proposition 8 style campaign again in the future. “I don't want to do hypotheticals,” he said. “I haven't thought about that issue and I really don't want to speculate because it's not relevant.” I'm not a CEO, and I'm not someone who has to deal with Eich being my CEO. But I can understand why people who are in the latter situation may not simply settle for: "Well, if Eich says it's not relevant to how he'll act as CEO, then it must not be relevant".

wwweston 13y ago
> Part of the problem of being CEO is that people do care...heavy is the head that wears the crown, and such. Which is to say, you agree that someone might have a reason to avoid getting into discussing prop 8 itself, you agree that the magnification factor exists for a CEO (and therefore that Eich has a greater reason to avoid making the discussion about prop 8 than you do) -- you just think he also has a correspondingly greater need to address, because this is about governance. Right? > Which means, among other things, that I'm not the person who makes the executive decisions that governs the company's policies and initiatives. If the issue was Mozilla governance, it might be reasonable enough to wonder and perhaps even speculate about what Eich's support of prop8 meant for that in a vacuum of other information (though corresponding a donation to motivations is hardly a transparent act). But there really wasn't a vacuum. Anyone who cared to see what an Eich-influenced Mozilla would be like doesn't have to speculate based on his prop 8 donation, they just need to look at the organization's history, given that he's been a significant influence since day 1. Looking at the internal support -- even from people who are clearly on the other side of prop8 from Eich -- also says something. And the statement I linked to gave the world very clear guidance about his intentions on that front and easy standards based on which to judge him. In other words, the governance issues were pretty clearly addressed. If this wasn't about governance of Mozilla, why does Eich have any more obligation than you do to provide a statment? > I've read his statement, and his interviews. What in his statement contradicts my assertions? That he doesn't know how to make a clear statement treating the relevant issues, or that his defenders treat him as if he's like that.