

Mozilla and I - thomseddon
http://archiville.org/2014/03/27/mozilla-and-i/

======
mrt0mat0
Did I read this argument right? Is everyone fired up for a guy that voted
against some proposition that was against LGBT? Isn't it his right to vote how
he pleases? Has he taken any direct action against someone in the LGBT
community? Has he shown in the past that his views change the ways he treats
people? So, I remember reading about something called the Red Scare that
blackballed people because of their political views. Is that really the way
the LGBT community wants to be viewed: Love us or we'll ruin your life? People
don't see things the same way, and that's their right. People aren't required
to see your same point of view. That is one of the great things about America,
we can feel however we want. Once there was a time when his views were in the
majority, and I think it's a shame that this is how people think it should be
solved. If you want to change him, you should make him hate you and ruin his
career. I'm not trolling, I'm just reading headlines, and I saw nowhere where
this man did anything except vote his mind. Please correct me if I'm in the
wrong.

~~~
npizzolato
> Isn't it his right to vote how he pleases?

Yes, that was his right, and no one has ever said differently. But freedom of
speech is not freedom from consequences in the realm of public opinion.
Funding Prop 8 had a direct negative impact on the LGBT community of
California. To expect that community to have no reaction to his actions would
be naive.

~~~
coldtea
> _Yes, that was his right, and no one has ever said differently. But freedom
> of speech is not freedom from consequences in the realm of public opinion._

Those consequences shouldn't include "losing your job" or "being treated
differently at work", else there's no freedom of speech.

How would LGBT community liked it they could lose their jobs for being LGBT?

~~~
mkr-hn
> _How would LGBT community liked it they could lose their jobs for being
> LGBT?_

The fact that LGBT people can be fired without recourse is a central issue.

~~~
levosmetalo
So let's make a law that LGBT people can't be fired at all? I personally know
one straight person that claimed he is gay and sued the company that fired him
for discrimination. And he won.

------
jmspring
Worked in a cube next to Brendan many years ago, back before the lizard was
free from the yolk of AOL. A blue E and an inflatable Lizard were exchanged as
pranks. I was recently out of college. Brendan was an approachable, smart, and
talented engineer. I didn't work on Javascript, but learned a few things from
him during my tenure nonetheless.

I know Mozilla and it's drive for openness, embracing of diversity, etc. So
that may be why it is special. The CEO role is definitely a very visible role.

That said, I wonder. If we knew the beliefs of and the organizations donated
to of those any of us happen to be working for at a given time, how would that
impact our day to day lives? Say someone who was very much
anti-H1B/immigration visas, should they not work for Microsoft or Facebook,
both of which have leaders that are very much for changes to the visa system?
If you are quite liberal in your beliefs and you then end up working for
someone that is a member of the tea party?

I realize the role mozilla plays (and it's charter), I know of Brendan's
donation (for which I disagree).

I'm trying to understand is this particular issue specific to this
organization and individual or is it something that we might see become
broader?

~~~
rabbyte
That's one aspect of this I don't understand. Another is the idea that you can
reduce a persons impact to one issue. The irony is that through his
involvement in JavaScript and Mozilla, he has likely done more for the LGBT
community than I have and I'm part of that community. Should I disregard that
incidental impact because of the smaller, intentional impact coming from his
personal life?

I admire Mozilla as a profoundly transparent and open culture. The CEO does
set the tone so the conversation is completely justified but this isn't so
much a conversation as it is picketing and posturing. I wouldn't want my
legacy to be reduced to one of the many things I disagree with the world
about. I would want people to see the full context of my impact, disagree with
me where I went wrong, and respect our differences.

------
coldtea
> _I can’t walk away from these people nor the cause I share with them nor the
> potential for Mozilla to once again be known as the champion to all but
> neither can I continue to earn my living from Mozilla while it is seen to
> exclude and alienate anyone._

Translation: I need the attention and the feeling I'm doing something great
for a large cause, so I'm forcing it, even though nothing has been done to any
Mozilla employee, just because we elected a CEO whose PERSONAL opinions on
some certain civil rights differ than mine.

------
fidotron
You know, I'll get downvoted to hell and back for this.

If you read the Unabomber manifesto a few things strike you. One is obviously
that the guy has a few screws loose as to how to resolve what he perceived as
the problems of the world, another is when it comes to attacking the
psychology of the protest movement he was bang on.

This is an example of exactly what he rants about - people over thinking and
then making highly visible group based sacrifices with no reasonable endgame
just to make everyone feel more solidarity but achieving absolutely nothing
except making them all feel better.

Want to oust the CEO? Get in a group and walk into his office. Don't go on
about it on the Internet.

~~~
arcameron
Great post, I think you analyzed this very well.

I think it's unfortunate that he's donated money to fight against personal
liberties. I don't think it is worth it to deny yourself contributions to
Mozilla on this one fact alone.

There are many greater causes to throw yourself behind, and I'm somewhat
disappointed I don't see the same vehemance for those

------
Zikes
52% of voters, just a hair over 7 million or 1 in 5 Californians, voted in
favor of Proposition 8.

Each of those people contributed to the moral travesty of that constitutional
amendment. Are we to deny them all the right to a career in the name of moral
freedoms? In this perfect world, would removing 1/5th of California's working
force be a net benefit to society?

Perhaps instead of vilifying a few of them, we should focus our efforts on
repealing the amendment and securing a more ideal future that everyone can
prosper in.

~~~
CanSpice
Those people voted privately. The CEO of Mozilla publicly contributed to the
Prop 8 campaign. If any of those seven million people made it publicly known
that they funded or voted for Prop 8, then they might have to live with the
consequences of making that publicly known.

They won't have their careers denied at all.

~~~
humanrebar
So it's OK if they can get away with it?

------
schmichael
The author works for the Mozilla _Foundation_ on which Eich has always been a
board member.

Eich was promoted to CEO of the _Corporation_ which is a for-profit subsidiary
of the Foundation.

As far as I can tell Eich's promotion to CEO doesn't give him any more power
or status within the Foundation than he already had. It seems like this person
should have quit the Foundation when it was revealed one of their board
members donated to Prop 8 years ago.

Does anyone know the political actions of the other Foundation board members?
The CEO answers to the corporation's board of directors; does anyone know (or
care) about their political actions?

------
toggle
> I hope [Mozilla] will very soon find its way back to the core values that I
> hold so dear.

The whole tone of this post (and that sentence in particular) makes it sound
like this person sees some kind of systemic shift in Mozilla, which seems like
a stretch.

Over the last few years Mozilla has been focusing on making the web be a
platform for applications. This is so 100% spot-on with their mission
statement -- it's like Mozilla has found their true purpose, and that is more
than just creating applications than enable people to use the internet
(Firefox, Thunderbird). Now they're doing more to make sure the web is a great
platform for applications (asm.js, Firefox OS). I'm assuming that, as CTO,
Brendan Eich had a lot to do with that. It would seem natural to pick him to
be CEO. But now people are making it sound like Mozilla has lost it's way all
of the sudden.

Obligatory disclaimer: I completely disagree with Eich's view on gay marriage.
At the same time, I think he's very qualified to be CEO of Mozilla. Ousting
him is not what will ultimately lead to LGBT acceptance. He does hold a stupid
belief, but I don't think that means he should be "shunned" and not allowed to
contribute to (or exist in) the web community, where he has proven to be a
passionate innovator. I've found that I don't like allowing myself to be
polarized towards everyone in some group, even if it's justifiable to dislike
them.

------
tn13
I do not think that this sort of behavior reflects well on LGBT community as a
whole. This is like a devoted Christian employee leaving Microsoft because
Satya Nadella is a polytheist pagan and has been donating his money to
institutions that support paganism and idolatry. It only goes to show that
some people who talk of need for equal treatment for all but themselves are
unable to tolerate diversity of thoughts.

Mozilla employees have total right to leave their job for whatever reason they
want but if I had to hire them in my company I will think thrice.

This kind of knee jerk reactions would make hiring LGBT people more riskier
and hence affect the whole LGBT community. In my opinion it is very irrational
for an employee to judge his boss by what he chooses to do with his spare cash
and time after office hours. What matters is whether he is a competent leader
within organization or not.

~~~
lucian1900
It would be like Satya donating money towards restricting the rights of
Christians. Like, say, the right to marry whoever you want.

~~~
subsection1h
Exactly! Some people state that they "do not think that this sort of behavior
reflects well on LGBT community as a whole," but if a CEO were to financially
support the promotion of legislation that would prevent Christians from
marrying, _millions_ of Christians would flip out.

