5 ms·

Well allow me to extend thanks to you and everybody like you for damaging a very important Open Source project at a very important time. I understand it would h

by hoopd 11y ago

Well allow me to extend thanks to you and everybody like you for damaging a very important Open Source project at a very important time. I understand it would have been difficult to sit down at the negotiation table with Eich and set an example for everybody of how to work with people you have disagreements with, but it would have been the right thing to do. Either way, you won. I hope it was worth it.

Karunamon 11y ago
How do you foresee a negotiation with someone's core values progressing? There's a fundamental incompatibility there, not just something that can be talked and reasoned around. You personally, the guy typing the letters into this box, what do you think the outcome of such a "negotiation" would be if it were as successful as humanly possible? At the end of the day, Mozilla's entire mission statement is contrary to Eich's stated beliefs. Were we talking about peons rather than C-levels, the words would be "bad culture fit".
- angersock 11y ago
  "Eich's stated beliefs." Where were these beliefs stated, other than a campaign contribution?
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    Does donating to a thing imply anything other than support for the thing? Does someone who donates to a presidential campaign envision any other outcome than election of the donate-ee? Does someone who donates to a political lobbying group envision any other outcome other than fulfillment of the lobbying group's goals? It's not like he donated to someone who just happened to have an odious belief, he donated to a group who's entire reason for existing is straight-up bigotry.
    - angersock 11y ago
      None of those match "stated beliefs". At best, you infer support--similarly, you might say that by voting for Obama one supports drone strikes on civilians. This whole thing is screwy enough as it is without putting words in people's mouths to then feign outrage over.
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        You appear to have missed the last sentence. If you don't see the difference between donating to a politician who has an entire constellation of beliefs, and donating to a single purpose lobbying campaign, we've nothing further to discuss.
        angersock 11y ago
        So, again, I tend to be charitable towards others. There are several other explanations for the donation: maybe he was drunk and did it on a dare, maybe he was bored, maybe he needed to spend the money to piss somebody off, maybe he actually does respect LGBT folks but believes that marriage should be clearly defined, maybe he wanted to force the issue because he found it so odious he wanted to see it properly overturned, who knows. The responsible thing is to say "Well, that looks odd, but he hasn't said anything else, so let's give him the benefit of a doubt, as he's done well by the people over whom he has direct authority." That's obviously not what anybody has done.
        Karunamon 11y ago
        Any one of those explanations could have been offered when he was asked about the matter and it would have almost completely defused it. That's what I'm trying to get through to you. It's not just the donation. It's not just the fact that he'd rather quit a CEO position rather than answer a direct question about it. (Which is pretty damning all by itself - but.) It's not just the fact that he still hasn't addressed it. It's all of those things taken together, that paint him in a very poor light. Every defense you can possibly come up with makes no sense in light of one of those three facts. And on a more personal note, my charity for Mr. Eich ran out when he took a shot at me and a few million others and didn't even have the fortitude to own it or apologize for it. There it hangs in the air like the scent of rotting meat, unaddressed, maybe people hope it'll go away if it's ignored long enough. People have been killed, driven to suicide, and otherwise treated as second class citizens thanks to the lies of the organization he chose to directly support. (You should look at the ads sponsored by the Prop 8 people - they're really something else!) My charity stops well short of that point. Perhaps it's not rational to place someone in the same mental bucket as Cathy and Robertson and Phelps, especially since Eich actually had a positive impact on the world via JS and Mozilla, unlike a fast food magnate, a megachurch preacher, and a hate speech spewer. Perhaps actions speak louder than words. ...Perhaps an apology would be a good start.
    - wbillingsley 11y ago
      Speaking generally, rather than about Prop 8, I suspect the answer to your question is "actually, yes a donation to a campaign could imply any number of alternatives". We like to think of politics as a simple matter of supporters and opponents for the cause at hand. But in practice it seems people can be prompted by all sorts of things -- being irked by some aspect of the other campaign, a tangential issue (such as it coming from the people rather than parties), a friend or relative being involved in the campaign -- there are potentially rather a lot of reasons why someone can be prompted into donating to a campaign they might not even vote for.
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        Fair enough on the general statement, but in this specific case, if any of these options were true, it makes his decision to not dismiss the donation and throw another $1000 at GLAAD or some other group be all the more questionable. I absolutely guarantee, had he said something like: "That was 6 years ago, I did it for $rational_sounding_reason, I don't hate gay people, I'm donating to $LGBT_charity as a token of good will" ..then this entire issue would have been discarded in minutes. Believe me, I don't want to believe that the guy who wrote JavaScript simultaneously holds backwards beliefs like this. That alone is hard to reconcile, given how inclusive the tech community generally is. But every time I approach this issue, I can't arrive at any other sensible conclusion. The confluence of: * The donation * His refusal to repudiate the donation 6 years later * His refusal to directly address the issue ..does not lend itself well to any other explanation.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- shpx 11y ago
  > Mozilla's entire mission statement is contrary to Eich's stated beliefs https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ Their mission statement is to create an open internet. To suggest that the people that made him leave cared about a culture fit at a company the didn't work at is ludicrous.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/participation/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/part... "Mozilla-based activities should be inclusive and should support such diversity." Okay. If Eich was still there, this must logically be followed with: "..Nevermind that one C-level guy over there who took positive action to deny some of you rights, this absolutely will not impact anything in any way and we as a company still hold these views of diversity and openness." Having someone with his beliefs at such a high position makes the entire "diversity" thing ring rather hollow. No matter what you think of the whole situation, I think you can see the dissonance that would cause. My experience with human beings is that precisely nobody can silo their beliefs like that.
    - shpx 11y ago
      > nobody can silo their beliefs So we need to stop discrimination before it happens? How do you feel about implementing some pre-crime measures nation-wide? As soon as he started advocating some anti-gay hiring policies, or rejecting pull requests from transvestites, then the consequences would've made sense to me. Though that's an idealist view, in reality letting him stay would've been interpreted as an endorsment by all the people making a huge fuss about it, in my ideal world no one would've cared to begin with. Instead of adding to their CPG you should've actually read the parts that don't agree with your view > Some Mozillians may identify with activities or organizations that do not support the same inclusion and diversity standards as Mozilla Diversity and inclusion should mean including people who don't agree with diversity and inclusion.
      - 11y ago
- xirdstl 11y ago
  Which mission statement is that? I thought their mission was specific to the Internet and open source software.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    "Mission statement" was incorrect. Please mentally replace that phrase with "community guidelines and company history".
    - xirdstl 11y ago
      After reading the community participation guidelines, I'm not seeing it either. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/participation/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/part...
- hoopd 11y ago
  There's nothing in Mozilla's mission statement[0][1] incompatible with Eich's personal beliefs. > You personally, the guy typing the letters into this box, what do you think the outcome of such a "negotiation" would be if it were as successful as humanly possible? I think it would have been adults acting like adults and accepting you don't have to agree with somebody in order to work with them. Eich already demonstrated he was willing and able to do just that. From 1998 when Eich co-founded Mozilla to 2005, after seven years as the chief technologist and member of the board, how did he misuse his power? From 2005 to 2014 while Eich was Mozilla's CTO, was Mozilla hostile to the LGBT community? How many discrimination lawsuits did Mozilla have to settle because of him? Eich spent 16 years at or near the top of the Mozilla, yet there's no pattern of discrimination, not only is there no pattern I've been unable to find any evidence whatsoever that he was unable to set personal differences aside. Worse yet for your case is that Eich helped build a very inclusive company where LGBT persons have always been, from what I can tell, quite welcome. [0] - https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ [1] - https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    The question here is not "Did Eich's presence cause an exclusionary atmosphere at Mozilla?", which is what you appear to be arguing. As you mention, the answer is no. The question is actually "Is it appropriate for someone who takes active steps to treat some people as undeserving of basic rights[1] to take the ultimate leadership role in a diversity focused company?" That answer is no. Going back to your "negotiation" statement - he was given that option! The pichforks didn't truly come out until the number of his non-answers on the issue. Someone saying "we support diversity" doesn't sound right when that can be instantly rebutted with "Then why is your company run by someone who donated against LGBTs?" It looks bad for Mozilla, and there's no good answer for that question - really! Eich had three valid options from that point on: * He could repudiate the donation and this would have evaporated overnight. Those views were apparently important enough to him to prevent such an option. * He could not do so and stay, and Mozilla would suffer due to the volume of people who stated they would not work for or with someone who did what he did. Two things to keep in mind: People are/were angry at Eich for his actions, not his thoughts. His thoughts are not conclusively knowable, his actions are. Also remember that Prop 8 passed, and it took another 6 years for equal marriage rights to clear in California as a result - were I living in California during that time, I'd have felt pretty scandalized too, moreso if I were actually working for Mozilla at the time. * He could not do so and move on. This was the chosen option. [1]: http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/ http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-...
- andrepd 11y ago
  There is nothing whatsoever in the Mozilla Foundation statement of values that is incompatible with whatever political stance Mr Eich had personally. Flushing such an important person out the door because you find his position bothersome is nothing short of repulsive. But I'm sure you know this already. If you still don't give a damn, it's because you firmly believe that anyone that doesn't share your values on such a (fashionable) issue as gay marriage is a horrible person who deserves to be scorched clean off the company he founded.
  - notsony 11y ago
    Thank you for speaking common sense.
- serge2k 11y ago
  If what happened to Eich happened to a peon it would be indefensible. The only reason why it was acceptable in the case of Eich is that he was in a position to represent the views of the company. If he was a mid level engineer working on Spidermonkey and got fired over a political contribution it would have been completely ridiculous.

by hoopd 11y ago

Karunamon 11y ago

How do you foresee a negotiation with someone's core values progressing? There's a fundamental incompatibility there, not just something that can be talked and reasoned around. You personally, the guy typing the letters into this box, what do you think the outcome of such a "negotiation" would be if it were as successful as humanly possible? At the end of the day, Mozilla's entire mission statement is contrary to Eich's stated beliefs. Were we talking about peons rather than C-levels, the words would be "bad culture fit".

angersock 11y ago
"Eich's stated beliefs." Where were these beliefs stated, other than a campaign contribution?
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Does donating to a thing imply anything other than support for the thing? Does someone who donates to a presidential campaign envision any other outcome than election of the donate-ee? Does someone who donates to a political lobbying group envision any other outcome other than fulfillment of the lobbying group's goals? It's not like he donated to someone who just happened to have an odious belief, he donated to a group who's entire reason for existing is straight-up bigotry.
  - angersock 11y ago
    None of those match "stated beliefs". At best, you infer support--similarly, you might say that by voting for Obama one supports drone strikes on civilians. This whole thing is screwy enough as it is without putting words in people's mouths to then feign outrage over.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      You appear to have missed the last sentence. If you don't see the difference between donating to a politician who has an entire constellation of beliefs, and donating to a single purpose lobbying campaign, we've nothing further to discuss.
      - angersock 11y ago
        So, again, I tend to be charitable towards others. There are several other explanations for the donation: maybe he was drunk and did it on a dare, maybe he was bored, maybe he needed to spend the money to piss somebody off, maybe he actually does respect LGBT folks but believes that marriage should be clearly defined, maybe he wanted to force the issue because he found it so odious he wanted to see it properly overturned, who knows. The responsible thing is to say "Well, that looks odd, but he hasn't said anything else, so let's give him the benefit of a doubt, as he's done well by the people over whom he has direct authority." That's obviously not what anybody has done.
        Karunamon 11y ago
        Any one of those explanations could have been offered when he was asked about the matter and it would have almost completely defused it. That's what I'm trying to get through to you. It's not just the donation. It's not just the fact that he'd rather quit a CEO position rather than answer a direct question about it. (Which is pretty damning all by itself - but.) It's not just the fact that he still hasn't addressed it. It's all of those things taken together, that paint him in a very poor light. Every defense you can possibly come up with makes no sense in light of one of those three facts. And on a more personal note, my charity for Mr. Eich ran out when he took a shot at me and a few million others and didn't even have the fortitude to own it or apologize for it. There it hangs in the air like the scent of rotting meat, unaddressed, maybe people hope it'll go away if it's ignored long enough. People have been killed, driven to suicide, and otherwise treated as second class citizens thanks to the lies of the organization he chose to directly support. (You should look at the ads sponsored by the Prop 8 people - they're really something else!) My charity stops well short of that point. Perhaps it's not rational to place someone in the same mental bucket as Cathy and Robertson and Phelps, especially since Eich actually had a positive impact on the world via JS and Mozilla, unlike a fast food magnate, a megachurch preacher, and a hate speech spewer. Perhaps actions speak louder than words. ...Perhaps an apology would be a good start.
  - wbillingsley 11y ago
    Speaking generally, rather than about Prop 8, I suspect the answer to your question is "actually, yes a donation to a campaign could imply any number of alternatives". We like to think of politics as a simple matter of supporters and opponents for the cause at hand. But in practice it seems people can be prompted by all sorts of things -- being irked by some aspect of the other campaign, a tangential issue (such as it coming from the people rather than parties), a friend or relative being involved in the campaign -- there are potentially rather a lot of reasons why someone can be prompted into donating to a campaign they might not even vote for.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      Fair enough on the general statement, but in this specific case, if any of these options were true, it makes his decision to not dismiss the donation and throw another $1000 at GLAAD or some other group be all the more questionable. I absolutely guarantee, had he said something like: "That was 6 years ago, I did it for $rational_sounding_reason, I don't hate gay people, I'm donating to $LGBT_charity as a token of good will" ..then this entire issue would have been discarded in minutes. Believe me, I don't want to believe that the guy who wrote JavaScript simultaneously holds backwards beliefs like this. That alone is hard to reconcile, given how inclusive the tech community generally is. But every time I approach this issue, I can't arrive at any other sensible conclusion. The confluence of: * The donation * His refusal to repudiate the donation 6 years later * His refusal to directly address the issue ..does not lend itself well to any other explanation.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
shpx 11y ago
> Mozilla's entire mission statement is contrary to Eich's stated beliefs https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ Their mission statement is to create an open internet. To suggest that the people that made him leave cared about a culture fit at a company the didn't work at is ludicrous.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/participation/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/part... "Mozilla-based activities should be inclusive and should support such diversity." Okay. If Eich was still there, this must logically be followed with: "..Nevermind that one C-level guy over there who took positive action to deny some of you rights, this absolutely will not impact anything in any way and we as a company still hold these views of diversity and openness." Having someone with his beliefs at such a high position makes the entire "diversity" thing ring rather hollow. No matter what you think of the whole situation, I think you can see the dissonance that would cause. My experience with human beings is that precisely nobody can silo their beliefs like that.
  - shpx 11y ago
    > nobody can silo their beliefs So we need to stop discrimination before it happens? How do you feel about implementing some pre-crime measures nation-wide? As soon as he started advocating some anti-gay hiring policies, or rejecting pull requests from transvestites, then the consequences would've made sense to me. Though that's an idealist view, in reality letting him stay would've been interpreted as an endorsment by all the people making a huge fuss about it, in my ideal world no one would've cared to begin with. Instead of adding to their CPG you should've actually read the parts that don't agree with your view > Some Mozillians may identify with activities or organizations that do not support the same inclusion and diversity standards as Mozilla Diversity and inclusion should mean including people who don't agree with diversity and inclusion.
    - 11y ago
xirdstl 11y ago
Which mission statement is that? I thought their mission was specific to the Internet and open source software.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  "Mission statement" was incorrect. Please mentally replace that phrase with "community guidelines and company history".
  - xirdstl 11y ago
    After reading the community participation guidelines, I'm not seeing it either. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/participation/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/part...
hoopd 11y ago
There's nothing in Mozilla's mission statement[0][1] incompatible with Eich's personal beliefs. > You personally, the guy typing the letters into this box, what do you think the outcome of such a "negotiation" would be if it were as successful as humanly possible? I think it would have been adults acting like adults and accepting you don't have to agree with somebody in order to work with them. Eich already demonstrated he was willing and able to do just that. From 1998 when Eich co-founded Mozilla to 2005, after seven years as the chief technologist and member of the board, how did he misuse his power? From 2005 to 2014 while Eich was Mozilla's CTO, was Mozilla hostile to the LGBT community? How many discrimination lawsuits did Mozilla have to settle because of him? Eich spent 16 years at or near the top of the Mozilla, yet there's no pattern of discrimination, not only is there no pattern I've been unable to find any evidence whatsoever that he was unable to set personal differences aside. Worse yet for your case is that Eich helped build a very inclusive company where LGBT persons have always been, from what I can tell, quite welcome. [0] - https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ [1] - https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/
- Karunamon 11y ago
  The question here is not "Did Eich's presence cause an exclusionary atmosphere at Mozilla?", which is what you appear to be arguing. As you mention, the answer is no. The question is actually "Is it appropriate for someone who takes active steps to treat some people as undeserving of basic rights[1] to take the ultimate leadership role in a diversity focused company?" That answer is no. Going back to your "negotiation" statement - he was given that option! The pichforks didn't truly come out until the number of his non-answers on the issue. Someone saying "we support diversity" doesn't sound right when that can be instantly rebutted with "Then why is your company run by someone who donated against LGBTs?" It looks bad for Mozilla, and there's no good answer for that question - really! Eich had three valid options from that point on: * He could repudiate the donation and this would have evaporated overnight. Those views were apparently important enough to him to prevent such an option. * He could not do so and stay, and Mozilla would suffer due to the volume of people who stated they would not work for or with someone who did what he did. Two things to keep in mind: People are/were angry at Eich for his actions, not his thoughts. His thoughts are not conclusively knowable, his actions are. Also remember that Prop 8 passed, and it took another 6 years for equal marriage rights to clear in California as a result - were I living in California during that time, I'd have felt pretty scandalized too, moreso if I were actually working for Mozilla at the time. * He could not do so and move on. This was the chosen option. [1]: http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/ http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-...
andrepd 11y ago
There is nothing whatsoever in the Mozilla Foundation statement of values that is incompatible with whatever political stance Mr Eich had personally. Flushing such an important person out the door because you find his position bothersome is nothing short of repulsive. But I'm sure you know this already. If you still don't give a damn, it's because you firmly believe that anyone that doesn't share your values on such a (fashionable) issue as gay marriage is a horrible person who deserves to be scorched clean off the company he founded.
- notsony 11y ago
  Thank you for speaking common sense.
serge2k 11y ago
If what happened to Eich happened to a peon it would be indefensible. The only reason why it was acceptable in the case of Eich is that he was in a position to represent the views of the company. If he was a mid level engineer working on Spidermonkey and got fired over a political contribution it would have been completely ridiculous.