I feel like every time I comment on this, people hone in on the practical aspects of this case and attempt to justify "what happened" in spite of considering "what should have happened" if we're considering how an ideal society should behave.
I want to clarify. Branden Eich should have absolutely been fired given the circumstances. In fact, the board should have considered the political climate, done their due research, and not have appointed him in the first place. We are entirely in agreeance on this point.
My comment goes a step beyond this situation, and tries to look at society as a whole. You're right in that, given a society full of trigger-happy ideological mobsters, you need to be extra careful in who you choose to represnt your company as leadership. I don't think many people are disagreeing with the logic of the board in removing him as a CEO of a community-driven organization.
I am simply commenting on the fact that we have come to the point that people view a person's social viewpoints as so vital and important to their position as a leader that it interrupts the (IMO more ideal) flow of aligning tech hierarchies in accordance to what I think should be the most important principle -- technical merit in designing technology and orchestrating the business strategy to achieve whatever objectives the organization has in mind.
It is my belief that socieites that prioritize technical leadership above social safeness will flourish over time above those that value social cohesion and not-rocking-the-boat-ness. There's a better phrase for that, but it's 1am.
Even if your belief were true, it is an odd definition of a "flourish" that assigns all weight to the material dimensions of a society and none to the moral.
It becomes particularly odd when discussing the leadership of an organization with a substantial moral component to its stated mission [1].
This is a good point. Flourishing does not imply moral behavior. I think the "flourish" comment is an embellishment to my main argument, which does center around the morality of holding somebody accountable for a view they expressed six years in the past.
Taking it a step further, I do feel that, given enough space, I could defend the idea that a society's moral imperatives are quite tied to how it gets its corn-pone [1]. This is several levels beyond the scope of my comment, though.
A view they expressed six years ago, have not rescinded or clarified, and, oddly enough, is largely supported by their political donations going back 20 years [1].
I want to clarify. Branden Eich should have absolutely been fired given the circumstances. In fact, the board should have considered the political climate, done their due research, and not have appointed him in the first place. We are entirely in agreeance on this point.
My comment goes a step beyond this situation, and tries to look at society as a whole. You're right in that, given a society full of trigger-happy ideological mobsters, you need to be extra careful in who you choose to represnt your company as leadership. I don't think many people are disagreeing with the logic of the board in removing him as a CEO of a community-driven organization.
I am simply commenting on the fact that we have come to the point that people view a person's social viewpoints as so vital and important to their position as a leader that it interrupts the (IMO more ideal) flow of aligning tech hierarchies in accordance to what I think should be the most important principle -- technical merit in designing technology and orchestrating the business strategy to achieve whatever objectives the organization has in mind.
It is my belief that socieites that prioritize technical leadership above social safeness will flourish over time above those that value social cohesion and not-rocking-the-boat-ness. There's a better phrase for that, but it's 1am.