
Thinking About Mozilla - danso
http://incisive.nu/2014/thinking-about-mozilla
======
Dolimiter
As someone observing from outside the US, this entire issue confuses me.

This CEO doesn't hate gay people. He's not homophobic. He simply is against
gay marriage, a view shared both culturally and legally by much of the USA.

Don't large organizations value diversity? Are only certain "diversities"
allowed? Why the intolerance for those who have different opinions?

EDIT: I'm reading the thoughful replies. It seems that those against this CEO
consider gay marriage a civil right's issue. But much of the USA doesn't
agree, neither culturally nor legally.

Should all high-ranking employees in the USA be vetted for appropriate
(leftwing?) political views before being hired? That doesn't seem right.

~~~
NotOscarWilde
Also based outside (in Europe). To be honest, these calls for resignation do
not only confuse me, they scare me.

\---

To illustrate my point in a slightly eccentric way, consider my own views on
vegetarianism. I strongly believe that mass production of meat constitutes a
very deep breach of rights of those animals. For me, this is a rights issue,
and I hope it will be considered so in the future.

This opinion is currently also held only be few, and it also campaigns for
rights of a certain group of beings that currently lack those rights. Still,
it's likely that most of you here are supporting that this right is withheld
from them. How would you feel if in the future, somebody called for your
resignation just because you ate some meat and wore furs in 2014?

\---

Please remember that I am not equating animal rights and human rights -- those
are different problems, and both are very important to me. I am happy so many
of people here are supporting same-sex unions, same as me.

But it is probable that much like in the 1850s, many of us privately support
opinions that may turn into rights issues in the future. Should we be held
accountable for that?

~~~
nknighthb
Eich did not privately support anything, he publicly gave money to remove
rights from people who already had them.

Your argument doesn't work at all for another, quite obvious, reason: If in,
say, 2050, eating meat is widely seen as unacceptable, people who used to eat
meat but now believed it to be wrong would be happy to _say_ that.

Eich has refused to. At every turn he has instead avoided directly addressing
the issue _at all_. He hasn't even so much as admitted it was wrong to try and
enforce his religious beliefs in law. The only reason he would be unwilling to
address the issue is if he still holds these beliefs, and will try to turn his
religion into law again in the future.

It is also irrational to expect someone who wants to enforce their religion on
an entire state of 37 million people with unconstitutional laws to not attempt
to do so in a much more personal context like running a corporation -- where,
it should be noted, both law and social custom hold individual rights to be
significantly curtailed to begin with.

~~~
NotOscarWilde
_> Your argument doesn't work at all for another, quite obvious, reason: If
in, say, 2050, eating meat is widely seen as unacceptable, people who used to
eat meat but now believed it to be wrong would be happy to say that._

If you're a sensible adult who eats meat today, you have likely heard of the
choice of being vegetarian and consciously rejected it. In other words, you
won't apologize for it today (which is fine by me). Isn't it then hypocritical
to only apologize and change your mind if and only if you're forced to by a
majority opinion in the future?

I think people in general care about internal consistency and would not
apologize for such an opinion -- unless they profoundly believed they were
mistaken in the past.

In the same way, Brendan Eich (and most of us also) has been raised in a
culture neutral or opposing the same-sex union. His opinion may be disliked by
many of us, even considered immoral, but we should strive to educate him,
debate him, not ostracize him, and definitely not oust him out of an unrelated
profession.

~~~
nknighthb
Sure, it would be hypocritical, and I wouldn't do it if I hadn't changed my
mind. And people would be free to criticize and ostracize me for it. I might
not like it, but that is a possible consequence of holding an unpopular
opinion.

In fact, if animal rights have so advanced by 2050 that eating meat is widely
seen as wrong, I dearly hope I am criticized and ostracized if I refuse to
change my mind. I'm already willing to entertain the thought that eating meat
may be wrong. It seems unlikely that a majority (or even plurality) would
reach that conclusion before I did.

Whether or not that comes to pass, though, we are talking here about removing
existing rights from beings recognized even by bigots as people _now_ , and
doing so in contravention of constitutional provisions that have forbidden
just that for nearly 150 years.

Edit: By the way, is your country one of the many in Europe that criminalizes
holocaust denial? What would you say if Mozilla appointed a known Nazi
sympathizer as CEO? Would you really think this reaction was "scary"? If not,
why not?

------
higherpurpose
Maybe I don't get it, but I think asking him to resign is over the top,
especially when he could be so good for Mozilla as a CEO. I think a honest
apology, and guaranteeing that there will be absolutely no backlash against
gay people within the company, ever, should be enough to settle things,
wouldn't it? I mean gay people within the company don't really think that if
he promises that he would not do that, he would still do it later, and fight
against their rights either within the company or outside?

I don't know, I just get the feeling that this has been blown out of
proportion a bit, and it's starting to seem similar to the outrage against
Google buses, in some ways.

~~~
kevingadd
I think asking him to resign is the correct and reasonable way to express your
unhappiness over his beliefs and his financial support of Prop 8. It keeps
things in the personal sphere - it's a request from one person to another
person - and ensures that the views of Firefox users (and people in general)
are clearly represented to Brendan and to Mozilla's board.

It also means that any final decision on whether he remains as CEO needs not
be a decision about faith or personal beliefs; it can be a rational, objective
choice about whether he is equipped to represent the company based on how the
public feels about him.

There's still a bit of tension there, in that it is ultimately one's personal
beliefs entering the workplace, but it's at least better than your boss firing
you because they found out you tithed to a fundamentalist church or because
you're queer.

~~~
danielweber
This seems like a good measured response.

I'm always nervous when people say "we are just applying social pressure!"
when applying social pressure has been used in the past to harm these same
causes.

Heck, forget the past, it can be used, right now, in places that aren't
California. I was on the losing side of my state's gay marriage ban. I could
lump it if someone made a conscientious decision as an individual to not work
with me, but it's another thing entirely if the people on the other side were
to try to get me fired or boycott anyone who employs me.

------
darksim905
It's amazing how much you guys are ripping apart a CEO who did something,
what, 6 years ago at this point? Wasn't there a shit storm when this happened
this first time? I guess I'm not sure why people are giving him flak again.
It's unfortunate that the first time, he tied it to himself & Mozilla the
organization; that sets a worse tone than him becoming CEO.

He doesn't hate you, he just put his money where his mouth was at the time &
was probably trying to get support for Mozilla in other avenues.

Nowhere has anyone said how he treats said people in the organization. Is he
condescending? Is he a jerk? If not, move on with your life. Don't quit your
job & wimp out because you don't understand that people can change.

~~~
Osmose
He did not tie it to Mozilla; rather, as part of California's laws for
political donations, you must state who your employer is. His blog post on the
matter ([https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-
diversity/](https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/)) makes
it very clear that Mozilla had nothing to do with the donation and the listing
of Mozilla was purely for legal requirements.

~~~
darksim905
Ah, thanks for the clarification. Is that just a way to tell where someone's
affiliation might be or why they may donate to a particular cause?

~~~
mbrubeck
I believe that rule is in place to help detect corporations trying to hide
campaign contributions by "laundering" them through a large number of
employees.

------
sylvinus
I've blogged about why I support Brendan as much as I disagree with some of
his beliefs:
[https://medium.com/p/5f43d452bd89](https://medium.com/p/5f43d452bd89)

------
znowi
I'm quite disappointed by all this drama going on around this subject. It
makes me question the very progressive community for its zeal to tarnish and
boycott a man for holding an unfavorable view.

I find it interesting how no one cared about it while Eich was a CTO all these
years. Now suddenly he's homophobic and dangerous. He's about to oppress gay
people.

It's like a witch-hunt. He made a donation 6 years ago therefore he's a gay
hater and will ruin everything. Meanwhile, Mozilla is one of the most open
companies I know. And I can not recall a single gay related issue.

As for Eich's view against gay marriage - it may not be popular or
progressive, but it is a legitimate opinion to hold. And given his ethical
track record in the company, I do not think he deserves the smear campaign
that is currently unfolding against him.

------
film42
Question: Why does any of this matter?

As someone for gay marriage, I really don't understand why the whole world is
rioting, demanding for the resignation of the CEO.

Every article begins stating how he doesn't support gay marriage, and how that
implies he's a terrible person, or Mozilla's eminent destruction. Yet, I've
not heard anyone talk about why the board selected him, because I'm sure board
saw many strong skills in the man, and thought he would do a fantastic job.

Why can't we see the good in people anymore? Why couldn't we work with the man
to help him look at life in a different way?

I know we're fighting for a good cause, but people still matter. Remember:
Honey before vinegar.

Update: why the down votes? Be constructive.

~~~
camus2
> As someone for gay marriage, I really don't understand why the whole world
> is rioting, demanding for the resignation of the CEO.

Mozilla and Firefox are a brand, now associated why homophobia since its CEO
is clearly homophobic.

So it's not difficult to understand how it could hurt (or not)Mozilla, and all
it's employees.

Maybe it wont, Chick-fil-A did not go bankrupt with its homophobic CEO, but
for a brand in the tech world, things may be different.

~~~
film42
Woah, just because someone doesn't support gay marriage does not mean they're
homophobic. You're doing exactly what the second half of my comment talks
about.

And to be frank, I still eat at chic-fil-a. I think their lemonade is a little
strong, but I never think of them as an anti-gay Resteraunt chain--because
they're not.

~~~
camus2

        because someone doesn't support gay 
        marriage does not mean they're homophobic. 
    

Yes they are homophobic if they dont support the fact that gays should have
the same rights as heterosexuals.

------
m0a0t0
I well reasoned, considered argument.

Unlikely nearly all the comments here.

------
Zoomla
To me, gay rights and Mozilla are not related at all.

------
Beliavsky
Homosexuals want to stamp out disapproval of their lifestyle, which explains
why people who don't want to bake cakes or photograph homosexual weddings are
being sued for discrimination. Homosexuals could certainly find people who are
willing to bake cakes or photograph their weddings. Hounding Eich is part of
their campaign to silence dissent.

~~~
mercurial
I'm not American, but it was my understanding that in the bad old days of the
fights for civil rights, some politicians had the following stance: "I'm not
racist, but I support the right of shopkeepers to who they want" (read: to
white people only). Discrimination wasn't OK back then, discrimination is not
OK now. Not that it has anything do do with the issue at hand, I'd be
surprised if the majority of people arguing on this very forum against Eich
didn't turn out to be straight.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I was with you right up to the Ad Hominem attack.

~~~
mercurial
I'm sorry, which Ad Hominem attack did you mean (or any other kind)?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
The part about branding everybody on the wrong side of your argument as some
pigeonhole category.

~~~
mercurial
Er. That would be an Ad Hominem attack if saying people are straight was an
attack. It is a statement, just like saying "most women have long hair" is a
statement and not a judgment.

Now, you may opine that it does not reflect the facts. It just seems to me
that:

\- a majority of commenters on the forum disagree with Eich's position

\- as gays form a fairly small part of the population at large, and I'm not
aware of any overrepresentation of gay people on HN, it follows that the
majority of commenters are straight

Ergo, it's likely that most people protesting against Eich's appointment on HN
are straight, and that it's not a gay conspiracy.

I'm not sure where you saw a "wrong side" to my argument either. For the
record, I disagree with his position, but I also recognize that it is shared
by the majority of the population of California, and that it is entirely
possible that for a man like Eich, 1000$ represents pocket change. In any
case, I'm of the mind of letting his actions as CEO speak for him.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Yeah I agree with you really. It just seemed odd to throw the irrelevant
detail in about 'its probably all those straight guys causing the problem',
sounded like a slam. Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent.

