
On Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla - mbrubeck
http://subfictional.com/2014/03/24/on-brendan-eich-as-ceo-of-mozilla/
======
Udo
This is really disappointing.

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.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Some (most?) people are entirely capable of separating their professional
views from their political views.

I actually find it more troubling that people believe you _can 't_ make that
separation.

~~~
ronaldx
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.

~~~
kevingadd
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.

~~~
ronaldx
>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.

~~~
kevingadd
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.

~~~
alexqgb
Uh, there's a big difference between simply "working for" a company and being
the CEO.

Do you honestly not recognize this? Or were you deliberately downplaying the
nature of his role as deliberate act of spin?

------
TheBiv
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.

~~~
jowiar
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.

~~~
magicalist
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.

~~~
jowiar
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.

------
alrs
Down for me. Cached:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E-3prdt...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E-3prdth0Z4J:subfictional.com/2014/03/24/on-
brendan-eich-as-ceo-of-mozilla/&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1)

------
general_failure
[https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-
diversity/](https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/) has
Brendan's response to prop 8 donation.

~~~
bcantrill
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.

~~~
andrewcooke
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?

------
ig1
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.

------
DatBear
Here we go again, another thread to paint Brendan Eich as the anti-christ for
a donation he made to a single organization over 6 years ago.

This is getting ridiculous now.

~~~
Udo
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.

~~~
sehr
_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.

------
sillysaurus3
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?

~~~
kevingadd
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.

------
md224
Hey guys, don't worry! The mods have safely moved this thread off the front
page, so we don't have to discuss this anymore.

~~~
kevingadd
It really disappoints me that PG keeps changing HN to make it more difficult
to have a discussion about topics of real importance and interest.

More room for articles about the latest marketing startup, I guess...

------
ZanyProgrammer
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.

~~~
kevingadd
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

~~~
amuntner
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.

------
cincinnatus
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.

~~~
lern_too_spel
Indeed, this is just another example of the hazy thinking that left us with
falsy values.

------
bcj
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...](http://www.businessinsider.com/emails-eric-schmidt-
sergey-brin-hiring-apple-2014-3)).

------
pdeuchler
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.

~~~
Udo
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 :)

~~~
pdeuchler
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.

Thanks for being cool about this :)

~~~
Udo
_> 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...

 _> Thanks for being cool about this :)_

Likewise :)

------
jedanbik
Well...you get what you pay for.

------
mantrax3
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...

~~~
crummy
Yes... soon we'll be oppressed by gays.

