I can see how, for example, a CTO role is not necessarily tied to a person's political and philosophical outlook. I think it's productive to actually disregard a person's political and religious views when working with them on tech matters.
However, with CEOs it's an entirely different ballgame. For better or worse, the CEOs personality is the company's personality. A promotion to CEO carries with it an endorsement of the whole person, there is really no way to spin it as if his personal views are not connected to his professional ones. In this case it's especially jarring given Mozilla's role and mission.
I don't think you can argue that a CEO's entire life is within the purview of a company's directors; that is a double-edged sword that can equally harm the diverse and the majority.
Private, personally held beliefs that don't enter the workplace simply shouldn't be a consideration in hiring and promotion choices, whether it's your faith, your sexual orientation, or something else.
Ultimately the only way in which this entered the Mozilla sphere is the requirement that all donations have an individual's employer attached; other than that there is literally no connection.
None of Eich's actions or behavior in his role at Mozilla has ever set a bad example for others or caused harm to LGBTQ individuals, as far as I know. I'd love to see counterexamples. His personality and behavior were always aligned with Mozilla as a whole being a welcoming and diverse organization. I say this as someone who felt completely welcome there (and sat at a desk next to Eich for months) and had many LGBTQ coworkers who seemed welcome in the workplace as well.
On occasions where hostile or unacceptable personal views did enter the workplace, these issues were promptly addressed by management.
Personally held, yes. But private? Hardly. Indeed, that's the problem. He made his personal beliefs very, very public.
That would be less problematic if he wasn't blocking the basic rights of others. But he was. After all, what we're talking about is carving out a legal exception to the 14th Amendment.
What next? Canceling women's right to vote? Re-banning interracial marriage? Seriously, basic legal equality is one of the fundamental ground rules that makes a democracy work. Attacking that is fairly high on the list of unforgivable sins.
But isn't Mozilla, in fact, itself a political organization? Its "manefesto", for instance, articulates broad public policy goals before it talks about its own products or institutional objectives (just the word "manefesto" has overt political overtones). [0] More generally, it is a non-profit that for many is a standard bearer for the open-source movement, not a corporation the success of which can be judged primarily by the value it accrues to its shareholders (who might not care about politics as long as profits were delivered).
Perhaps you could argue that Brendan Eich's personal politics are compatible with Mozilla's politics, but I don't think that you should assert that they aren't relevant, just because they arguably shouldn't be relevant in the context of a for-profit business. It seems prudent to expect that the political views of the CEO of a non-profit like Mozilla will have an integral effect on its mission and trajectory, at least within the policy space that is the focus of that organization.
And in turn, it seems reasonable to expect that the constituency which that non-profit serves would care very much about the personal politics of its CEO.
I do not prefer to support a business where the direct result is that profits go towards lobbying against my human rights. I consider this a professional view on the matter - it directly relates to the running of the business.
In the end, professional views are political views. If you believe you have separated those, you are naive.
I think what someone uses their paycheck for is their business. It'd definitely be unacceptable if Mozilla as an organization was involved in prop 8 or anything similar, but I'd bet you anything that Eich isn't the only employee of Mozilla that spends part of their paycheck on something you object to.
From the other perspective, how do you think staunch conservatives feel about their business's profits going towards supporting things they find objectionable?
Fairness in this regard protects everyone equally.
>I think what someone uses their paycheck for is their business.
It's funny you should put it like this, because I think who someone falls in love with and gets married to is their business.
Edited to add - the comment in reply to this contains a false quote: In no way would I seek to prevent Eich from being CEO of whatever business. I would just not financially or morally support that business if I had an alternative choice. I consider that an essential part of equality - I have a right to support businesses that I choose and I prefer to exercise that right with some respect toward the moral and ethical consequences.
If you apply the 'Eich shouldn't work for Mozilla because he's a bigot' principle equally, that means bigots can prevent you from working anywhere. This is obviously unacceptable, and as it happens the law forbids it.
As much as I don't agree with (or respect) his politics, equality has to be paramount here. It's not false equality, or equality-when-convenient: In these matters actual equality is incredibly important, so I will continue to defend it no matter how angry people are.
> However, with CEOs it's an entirely different ballgame. For better or worse, the CEOs personality is the company's personality. A promotion to CEO carries with it an endorsement of the whole person, there is really no way to spin it as if his personal views are not connected to his professional ones. In this case it's especially jarring given Mozilla's role and mission.
This is reallly overreaching. 99%+ of the people on here could not have told you who Gary Kovacs was before reading articles today, and still couldn't tell you who John Lilly or Mitchell Baker are. So the arguments for the "public face of the company" that have popped up today as justification for why random internet guy #7's opinion on someone is important really don't hold much water. It's fine to have an opinion and to express it, but it's just the insistence on the importance of that opinion that feels disingenuous.
But really, the proof is in the pudding. Nothing in the past has suggested that the work environment at Mozilla will suddenly grow toxic with this change, nor will there be a sudden change in the causes they advocate for or the larger community they foster. It is possible that these things will change for the worse, but that's already a possibility, and we have tools and a whole lot of people who love Mozilla to keep an eye on it, ready to help out if needed.
Do you see a difference between CEOs and presidents on this? Seems there is a large overlap between those who have no problem with e.g. Clinton's dalliances and those decrying this appointment.
I don't care who Bill Clinton chooses to spend the night with. I do care who Bill Clinton campaigns to have the right to marry (and have definitely criticized him re: DOMA).
I don't care who Brendan Eich chooses to spend the night with. I do care who Brendan Eich works to get the state of California to say I (or his employees) have the right to marry.
Only in some organizations, driven by strong CEO personalities. In other orgs, the CEO fades to the background for maximum effectiveness. Mozilla seems more like the latter.
A promotion to CEO carries with it an endorsement of the whole person
I don't see that at all. It's not "monarch" or "mascot" or "most popular". It's lead administrator, with a specific set of duties that doesn't involve much (if any) electoral politicking, nor involvement in the details of employees' lives.
it's especially jarring given Mozilla's role and mission
Mozilla has a worldwide mission well-captured by the 'manifesto' here:
People around the world have far more diverse perspectives on how marriage should work than what's preferred in SF, or other techie/urban wealthy-world communities. People ought to be able to collaborate on the Mozilla mission, in any particular staff or volunteer role, without an x-ray into their stances on other things, as expressed with their own time and money.
Also, privacy is big part of the Mozilla mission, and privacy is multifaceted. It's not just keeping things secret, but keeping things separate by convention: agreeing not to look, and not to act on, things people do in other spheres-of-life.
Such a practice isn't just polite, it's also practical. We get bigger and better organizations, and cities, and nations when vastly-different people can "agree to disagree", confine their controversies to specific bounded forums, and cooperate maximally everywhere else.
I am born and raised in Dallas, so please use that as context, as I was not privy to the lively debate that Californian's had while this prop was being discussed.
I don't understand why someone who made a donation, in good faith and clarity, should have to be subjected to this sort of back and forth questioning and tearing down his ability to lead a company.
Sadness, I understand. Disagreement, I understand. However calling Brendan unfit to be CEO simply bc of a donation he made, to a cause you don't agree with; seems completely unfair.
There's a big difference between "cause I don't agree with" and "cause that believes some people are more equal than others". In particular, this donation calls into question his ability to be fair and accepting regarding people who he will encounter in the workplace.
If Eich's donation was about his taxes being too high, or that weed should or shouldn't be legal, that's fine. But his donation is implying that one group of people, some of whom are his employees, deserve less standing in society than another group of people. This is a problem.
I think that him wishing to write off a class of people as of lesser standing is a bit disingenuous. Unfortunately, marriage has become a mix of religious, economic, and legal meanings. In my experience, it isn't so much hating another group so much as feeling like something sacred to them is being coopted and horribly distorted. Having something with the same economic and legal standings but not called marriage generally seems fine by them. That's at least been my experience talking to friends/family/etc. I live in South Carolina for reference.
At the end of the day, we really don't know Eich's personal politics and shouldn't pretend to. Unless he starts on z crusade to "hate the gays" or something equally horrible under the banner of Mozilla, what does it matter?
I hope you wouldn't be surprised that there is some group of people that feel this way over almost any political issue. Legalization is one thing, but some people really do feel that taxation is fundamentally theft.
Abortion is another big one, of course. I'm surprised many conservatives can live in a civil society at all when from their perspective abortion is state-sanctioned mass murder. In that case, I could certainly see people calling someone so morally bankrupt as to donate to Planned Parenthood unfit to be the "public persona" of Mozilla, and I would imagine the tide on HN would be going the other way, that a donation like that shouldn't have any bearing on his performance in his role as CEO.
How about instead of guessing at how he might treat people from a single data point, we treat it as only that, a single data point, and given the evidence seen in places like this submission, see how it actually works in practice? Brendan Eich has obviously been involved in Mozilla and the web community since the beginning, and he's committed himself to things like the code of conduct, which already exists to allow people with different ideas of what constitutes "a problem" to live and work together. I think it's likely that, with vigilance, things will continue to work at Mozilla.
I'm not guessing as to how Eich might treat people. I'm saying how, with his cash, he has stated how the state of California should treat people. If he believes otherwise, he should say/fund otherwise.
I would agree with you if his employees were speaking about how he brings these views to the workplace. However, this very article is from someone who is saying that his decision to make the donation does not bleed into work and she feels very comfortable with Brendan's ability to lead.
That is proof enough for me, and encouraging bc he is able to hold his beliefs and still not let it effect the way he treats his staff.
I'm glad you pointed out that you don't live in California. If you did, and had seen the actual campaign, you would know that it was one of the shrillest, most dishonest, most deceitful political campaigns in living memory (which is saying a lot). Indeed, it was the absolute epitome of bad faith, and that would be true regardless of the subject.
When Judge Vaughn heard the subsequent legal case against Prop. 8 he invited the supporters to submit any of the "facts" about the "dangers" of gay unions that they'd cited in their media campaign to his court for consideration. That catch was that they'd have to do so under oath, meaning that any known falsehoods presented as truth could lead to charges of perjury.
The supporters ended up saying nothing. So while it turned out that these supposedly religious people had no real concern about bearing false witness in the eyes of God (who is, perhaps, more forgiving) they were a lot more circumspect about doing so before the State of California.
In terms of lingering ill-will, it's not just the cause people are upset about. It's the extraordinary divisiveness and dishonesty with which it was advanced. And the worst part is that now, after taking such an unambiguous stand against the values of moderation, diversity, and tolerance, Brendan is appealing to those exact values when defending himself against the backlash.
Most reasonable people know that tolerance cannot extend to intolerance, and that preserving a society that is generally inclusive and respectful means getting pretty intolerant with those who attack its ground rules. That's what happened here. And the guy who did the attacking seems entirely remorseless.
For the non-Californians among us, search for "Gathering Storm ad" on your favorite search engine. That's the kind of thing Eich's money went to, and it was almost impossible to miss if you watched any TV the week before voting day. If you don't feel a little sick just watching it, you have a stronger stomach than I.
In some parts of the US, there's a "lively debate" over this stuff. Where Mozilla Corp. is headquartered, anti-LGBT stances are considered antisocial and kept private. I think that's why it's a big deal.
I completely agree, but it's a personal decision. Unfortunately this goes both ways: People with conservative views feel just as strongly about how you might wish to live your life, and allowing that to enter the employment sphere would be equally unacceptable.
I'm not really sure what Orwell and the 14th amendment have to do with my comment. I don't think I ever supported Prop 8?
I just don't see any way to exclude Eich from the workplace without exposing myself or others to harm. I think there has to be a shield between one's personal beliefs and professional conduct, only pierced by truly unacceptable things like felonies or abuse. As much as I dislike prop 8, I don't think a donation really rises to the level of a felony or abuse.
Is there a way to achieve the desired result (everyone but Eich is protected in the workplace) that I'm missing?
As he stated, he would be more than willing to discuss the issue with you personally, just not on the internet, so I cannot speak to the way he would reply. However, I respect his right to feel the way he feels.
I respect his right to feel whatever he wants. I don't respect his decision to spend money putting fear-mongering homophobic ads on TV that ultimately deny other people the right to live as equals. That's where a lot of us draw the line and where I find it difficult to support him as a figurehead for anything that I also support.
I am not seeing that many comments in the vein of "unfit to be CEO." To the contrary, I've seen a lot of comments (especially high-voted ones) saying "I disagree, but that's his right."
I am seeing quite a few in the vein of "I disagree strongly enough that I will actively lessen my support of Mozilla." These comments are not expressing the opinion that he is unfit as CEO... but if this issue causes enough people to stop supporting Mozilla, that would actually make him unfit to be CEO.
When you speak with your wallet you speak louder than you can with your mouth.
The overall issue here has less to do with his overall ability to be a CEO, and more to do with one of the functions of being a CEO. He clearly took a stance (again with his wallet) against the LGBT community, which fair or not will speak volumes to a large group of users, employees, potential users/employers and partners.
I mean, this guy is making an appeal to the virtues of tolerance, diversity, and respectful disagreement when asking people to withhold judgement related to his political activism. And that would be fine if the issue in question pertained to any number of open questions facing lawmakers. But when we're talking about Prop. 8 - a law that was directly opposed to the exact values he's espousing here - it's hard to view his appeal as one made in good faith. That's twice as true when the campaign he supported was characterized by astonishing levels of malice and deceit.*
Put simply: you don't get to demand that others be tolerant and passive and respectful when addressing your attempts to block their 14th Amendment rights.
Just...no.
*
When Judge Vaughn heard the subsequent legal case he asked the supporters of Prop. 8 if they'd like to submit for his consideration any of the "facts" about the harmfulness of gay marriage that they'd repeatedly cited in public during their scorched-earth media campaign. The catch was that they would have to do so under oath, and suffer penalty of perjury if any claims were found to be knowingly dishonest.
And how many "facts" did these supposedly religious supporters choose to supply? Zero. Zip. Nada. None.
The good news was that while these "believers" didn't give a fig about bearing false witness in the eyes of God, they maintained the presence of mind not to do so before the State of California.
Bringing an individual's personal feelings and opinions into the workplace is unacceptable regardless of what they are. I wouldn't want a conservative using my sexual orientation or faith as an excuse to fire me or harass me at work, so I don't think it's appropriate to use Eich's (speculated) faith/opinions as an excuse to eject him from the workplace.
If his behavior or decisionmaking at Mozilla is questionable, that's one thing. But he's never demonstrated any failings there.
All that aside, yeah, it's super questionable why anyone would support prop 8. I can't even speculate. Eich did offer to explain privately to anyone who asked, so maybe you can ask to find out.
It's not about his beliefs so much as his basic human integrity (or lack thereof).
Put simply the guys is an asshole. And that's different from a hypocrite, mind you. A hypocrite tries to hide the fact that what he says and does are different. He may not believe in what he's saying, but needs you to think he does.
An asshole, on the other hand, is very open about his belief that different standards apply to him. He'll tell you not to do what he does openly because that's his prerogative. Not yours, his.
Supporting an unjust, intolerant, hateful piece of legislation is one thing. Blasting those who oppose you on the grounds that they're not being tolerant and inclusive is something else. In other words, it's important for YOU to be tolerant. But he can be an intolerant as he damn well pleases.
If a single piece of data pointing at some aspect of his beliefs is sufficient grounds to brand him an asshole, something like 90% of the earth's population are assholes.
Start with all the catholics and other people from faiths that are anti-LGBTQ, regardless of their personal beliefs. Add in pretty much everyone from the bible belt and other anti-LGBTQ areas, even if in reality they just keep quiet to avoid attracting attention in a hostile environment.
Keep going as long as you like.
As far as I'm concerned, the key fact is this: His professional conduct and personal life are separate, unless his personal life contains conduct that is so completely unacceptable (i.e. felonies, abuse, etc) that it indicates an inability to perform in his professional capacity. None of this is true. He happens to be a technology professional with beliefs I disagree with; I've worked with plenty and will no doubt work with more of them.
True equality in this case protects everyone, when applied correctly: He doesn't consider my beliefs in the workplace and I don't consider his. We're both safe and free to do whatever we wish (aside from the impact of political lobbying, which is of course not a workplace matter)
That's a viable view in a perfectly flat organization. Mozilla may be closer to flat than most. But it's not flat enough. A guy who would take a public stand against the 14th Amendment has already provided others with cause to distrust him on issues of basic fairness and equality.
A CTO isn't the one ultimately responsible for a company's culture. A CEO is.
The person most individually responsible for Mozilla's culture would be Mitchell, not whoever happens to be CEO of the Mozilla Corporation right this second.
For example at various organization-wide events (all-hands, summits) Mitchell is the one giving the "where are we going and what are the goals?" talk. She's also the one to whom non-technical project governance issues ultimately escalate.
The fact that there is a complicated interaction here between the corporate structure and the project structure is a bit confusing; it's not a common setup. But in practice the CEO doesn't have much impact on the culture of the project, from what I've seen.
A nauseating non-apology that attempts to marginalize those that view this as a moral issue -- and many, many people now view this as a moral issue (to say nothing of the courts). He's obviously entitled to his opinions, but as a CEO, he's also held to a higher level of public scrutiny. The donation to Prop 8 -- which, to be fair, was six years ago -- was ill advised, and the non-apology even more so. At this point, he should issue an actual apology (and he can look to any number of politicians on how to express a "reconsideration" of this particular issue) and explain that it is now clear to him that the spirit of Prop 8 is entirely at odds with Mozilla's own policies, that as CEO he cannot have it both ways -- and that he picks Mozilla over Prop 8.
Edit: Fair enough; it's not even a non-apology -- it's just nauseating.
it's not a "non-apology". it's simply not an apology. are you so used to people kowtowing to indignant internet hordes that an authentic voice explaining his position just confuses you?
and why should he issue an apology? he seems to think similarly to around 50% of the population. why on earth should he apologise for that?
It doesn't read like it was intended as an apology.
It wouldn't strike me as very honest for somebody to apologize for a view unless they had actually changed that view without the influence of public pressure.
"So I do not insist that anyone agree with me on a great many things, including political issues, and I refrain from putting my personal beliefs in others’ way in all matters Mozilla, JS, and Web. I hope for the same in return."
On the other hand, I will spend cash money of my very own to try and force the law to comply with my beliefs against
others.
I always love bigots with one hand saying: "oh i have my beliefs but don't try and force them on others so please leave me alone" and with the other hand piling money on bigoted campaigns to keep rights from marginalized groups.
That's kind of how democracy works in the US, you know. If you believe something, you campaign to try and put it into law. What's disingenuous? He never said he doesn't apply his personal beliefs to the political sphere; it's obvious that he does. The key is that he keeps them out of his work.
One way to introspect your own view-point is separating it from the current gay marriage debate and considering the alternate (but parallel) question "how would you feel if the CEO donated to a campaign for banning interracial marriages ?"
You could also imagine you were part of an interracial couple working for the company, how would you feel about bringing your other half to company events (xmas parties, dinners, etc.) knowing your boss was actively involved in trying to legally prohibit your relationship, etc.
If you'd see that scenario in a different light from this one, it might be worth considering why you consider it different and if your reasoning for doing so is sound.
I see you made this account specifically to talk about the donation.
First off, most non-religious people don't think in terms of "anti-christs" all that much. Outside of rhetorical amusement, that term has no real world meaning for most of us. ;)
Kidding aside, the view offered of Eich is more nuanced than that. Certainly the man is entitled to his opinion, even if it's morally objectionable - which it definitely is in this case. I know of nothing that suggests Mr Eich is a bad technologist, a bad programmer, or even a bad communicator. He is also, by most accounts, a nice person to chat with, as are most religious extremists if you can interact with them outside of their zealotry area.
However, Mr Eich must have known at the time that his employer's name would appear in the donation records. Even at that time, he apparently had no problems with making his own deplorable values part of the Mozilla message. The egregiousness here is not even due to his opinion about gay people per se, but his intention to marginalize them through legislation, which is a gross defect in his civic ethics. And now this guy gets to be CEO - a role that consists of nothing but the projection of personality and personal views. So, yes, it's understandable that people worry about Mozilla at this point.
Outside of rhetorical amusement, that term has no real world meaning for most of us.
I very much doubt it was meant to be taken literally.
he apparently had no problems with making his own deplorable ethics part of the Mozilla message.
So essentially, if you are known to be a part of a company, all of your actions and views are representative of said company? I imagine that makes all of the "views expressed here are my own" disclaimers on people's blogs & twitter feeds invalid.
a role that consists of nothing but the projection of personality and personal views
I think the board of directors would have something to say about that.
> First off, most non-religious people don't think in terms of "anti-christs" all that much. Outside of rhetorical amusement, that term has no real world meaning for most of us.
Please don't pretend that you speak for everyone who shares with you the fact that they also don't believe in something.
Firefox share continues to decline, and this promotion may prevent Mozilla from acquiring top talent. Talent goes where talent feels like going, and if they feel it's unethical to work for someone, then it's easy to see why this may turn out badly.
By the way, who was in charge of deciding whether to promote him to CEO?
FWIW, he's been on the board for ages, and was instrumental in the founding of Mozilla as an organization as a company. A move from CTO -> CEO feels like an incredibly small change in ownership and reporting and I can't imagine it would affect people's opinion of Mozilla.
Do you expect an employee to disparage their CEO in public? Maybe LGBT Mozillians really don't have a problem with his appointment, but they'd be foolish to diss the person who signs their paycheck.
I can't imagine that saying pretty much anything about Eich in public would get a Mozilla employee fired; it's a pretty diverse company. Feel free to provide counter-examples :P
Not only that, people ask very pointed and potentially embarrassing questions at company meetings. Everything is in the open at Mozilla.
After spending more than a decade and a half in corporate America, it's very, very refreshing.
To the contrary, I feel quite free to be openly and publicly critical of Mozilla leadership. Contributors to Mozilla, both paid and volunteer, have a great deal of freedom in how they engage with and about the project. More so than at any other organization I've been employed by.
Sure, though she could just stay quiet and let him be seen as an asshole. So while I don't think this article means there's nothing to talk about, I do think it should be considered relatively sincere.
Supporting prop 8, and then actually making the effort to put your money where your mouth is, demonstrates a world view that is incompatible with clarity of thought. Clarity of thought, the ability to see through bullshit and get to the truth of things, is a critical skill in any executive.
I don't have the information to be able to judge how Eich's views will affect his ability to be a CEO, but it's worth remembering that the CEOs of the companies that Mozilla competes with have been actively involved in illegal anti-competitive business practices (http://www.businessinsider.com/emails-eric-schmidt-sergey-br...).
I held my tongue in the other thread, but I feel like I need to say my piece (and as a white male, I have been told all my life that it is my right to be listened to, so forgive me for acting upon that impulse).
HN holds a very special place in my heart. To me, this community is still one of the absolute best for impartial, high level, and overall courteous discussions about a lot of hot button and polarizing issues among some very smart and influential people (and this is completely setting aside the wonderful technical/startup aspect). Very often you find those who lose their cool downvoted to oblivion for the sake of rational discourse, whether people agree or not, and every day that warms my heart and gives me hope for the future of humanity. The greater internet has evolved into a global phenomenon, and with that has come an Eternal September of those who believe that anonymously shouting as loud as they can in comment sections and forums is a substitute for high level reasoning and discourse, thus I am driven to ever smaller enclaves, HN being one of those.
For people that pride themselves on seeking out and eradicating cognitive biases both within themselves and within others I saw a dis-heartening amount of group think and cognitive dissonance among many earlier today. People who have been trusted as linchpins of our community for many years were immediately attacked for simply not being vitriolic towards BE, and even more worrying, his supporters.
I will lay down my life for you to exercise your freedom of opinion and speech (this is not hyperbole... I see no point in living if I may not live freely), and some days I honestly wonder about whether my children (should I chose to have progeny) will enjoy those same freedoms, thanks to the fine people at the NSA. Yet never once was I ever afraid of being silenced on my home turf, if you will. Never could I have fathomed the amount of simple hate that came from both sides today. It shook a lot of my belief in this community, and made me finally realize that maybe PG has been right to tighten the moderating screws.
As I'm sure a lot of you were, I was frequently bullied and insulted as a child and teen. Being different made me an easy target, and I still suffer from both the physical and emotional scars that I received. I would hope that many of you would remember a time you too were the target of a larger group simply for not conforming to what they expected. I would hope that many of you who were so quick to spew insults and acrid words would take a step back to remember that we are all human beings, that we are all different in so many wonderful ways, and diversity of thought, opinion and person is what makes us strong.
Marriage equality is a large issue in our society today, and fortunately we still live in a country that gives us the right to freely express our political and social beliefs. We still have the right to change our government for the better. We still are able to mold our society as we see fit. Please, take your righteous anger and use it for the better good. If BE infuriates you, then go out there and start getting signatures on ballots in the various states where marriage equality is either ill defined or non-existent. If you subscribe to BE's views then start calling your representatives. Show your "hacker" spirit and build a website that provides literature on your beliefs, no matter what they were. But for the love of all that is good, and true, and beautiful, do not tear down a fellow human for simply exercising their God given (as per the Constitution and Human Rights charters) rights by voicing their beliefs, however repugnant they may be. Pain and suffering is a zero sum game, and the increase of it does our whole species a disfavor.
If you must find a direct release to your anger please aim it at those who seek to incite this kind of partisan behavior for their own good. It would treat us all well to remember most of us have either purchased goods from companies that have given donations to both sides of the aisle on this issue, and yet we do not tear their representatives limb from limb when the topic arises. Being equitable in your dealings will never hurt you, I can assure you of that.
These are my two cents. Take them for what you will, but please do not ruin this wonderful oasis of learning that we all benefit from daily.
I apologize for being unclear if you perceived me as tearing down a fellow human being.
I absolutely share your conviction about free speech and a more civilized society. When I say I'm disappointed by this turn of events, I don't mean to say that this person should be shunned and punished for their beliefs at every opportunity, I am merely expressing the opinion that they're not a good choice for the job at hand. It must be possible to express this without descending into pitchforks mode - I'm sorry if I didn't manage to convey that. In any case, you can take comfort in the fact that I got nothing but flak for expressing this opinion :)
Hey Udo, I think the simple fact that you even thought of apologizing in a public forum shows you are not one of those of whom I was talking about. I can't say I saw your comments in the other thread, but your opinions below at the very least have some reasoning and basis to them, and don't seem to attack BE the person, as much as you disagree with his appointment, which to me is fair game.
> I can't say I saw your comments in the other thread
That's because I didn't see the other thread at all. I just found out about his new role in this one.
> I think the simple fact that you even thought of apologizing in a public forum shows you are not one of those who I was talking about.
Ah, okay. I kind of jumped to conclusions there, mostly based on the content of the replies I've been getting and the fact that my post was at the top of the thread there for a while.
Also, I'm aware that due to the language/culture barrier my comments are sometimes perceived to be more abrasive than intended...
We should fight against those whose opinions and work will make society a worse place, while the battle is going on.
But the battle is over. Any display of outrage over an action that stopped mattering when Prop 8 was overturned serves little purpose right now, and should be considered a display of hate and bigotry.
But all that is par for the course I guess. The oppressed shall become the oppressors, and the wheel keeps turning...
I can see how, for example, a CTO role is not necessarily tied to a person's political and philosophical outlook. I think it's productive to actually disregard a person's political and religious views when working with them on tech matters.
However, with CEOs it's an entirely different ballgame. For better or worse, the CEOs personality is the company's personality. A promotion to CEO carries with it an endorsement of the whole person, there is really no way to spin it as if his personal views are not connected to his professional ones. In this case it's especially jarring given Mozilla's role and mission.