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.
