
Mozilla Chief Steps Down After 1 Week - mjudge260
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-chief/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Executives%20and%20Management&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body
======
morbius
This is absurd. I've been following the news for over a week. I still don't
understand the outrage. Heck, I doubt Mozilla even did, because Eich posted a
reassuring statement and people still aren't happy.

Besides, he never said he hated same-sex couples. Supporting Prop 8 was a bad
decision, but the vitriol directed at Eich is a non-sequitur. There's varying
opinions on varying sides of the debate, so why is Eich singled out for having
one?

People can hate Eich. I frankly don't care what anyone thinks of him. But it's
so _boneheaded_ that someone would need to step down from a CEO position just
because he supported a bill. It's scary. And remember, Eich isn't just "some
guy"; he was CTO of Mozilla for years and invented JavaScript.

The whole situation is kind of pathetic.

------
moskie
This is a good thing. And I strongly disagree with the idea that none of his
political beliefs should be taken into account when determining whether he
should be the CEO of Mozilla.

When it comes to personal/political beliefs, there is a line. Having beliefs
that go beyond that line means it will (should) affect your professional life.
But people draw that line at different places, meaning that, in aggregate, you
don't know where the chips will fall in situations like Eich being the CEO of
Mozilla. Some people draw the line in a place, such that supporting anti-gay
marriage legislation is acceptable, others do not.

I think few people would be surprised if there was an uproar upon the
revelation that the CEO of Mozilla (or any company) was a supporter of, say,
the KKK. Most everyone would agree that that's an unacceptable "political"
belief, such that he should be not be the CEO.

So the question isn't whether Eich's beliefs should be an issue. The question
is whether supporting anti-gay marriage legislation goes beyond the line of
acceptability. And the public has spoken pretty clearly here. Good for them.

------
avmich
Gay marriage opinion is the grounds for changing CEO. How about immigration
opinion? Animal rights opinion? Climate change opinion? Political views?

~~~
wheaties
Sorry but I have to agree with this. If the purpose of the role is to be the
CEO of a company dedicated to open source software then his religion, personal
beliefs, and his lifestyle choices should have no bearing on being a CEO. That
includes both people who are for AND against gay marriage. We aren't supposed
to discriminate on any front when hiring someone so what makes this different?

~~~
heterogenic
If he doesn't like gay marriage, he doesn't have to get gay married. But
contributing a significant amount of money to take away that option from
someone else is wrong. And to believe it's his right to take that option away
is wrong.

I have a same-sex partner, Brendan is willing to work and make a real effort
to take away our recognition. To unmarry our children's parents. To eliminate
our shared benefits, and impair the other 1148 rights conferred by marriage.

I am not happy that my money and time might go towards his salary and to
further empower his views, so it's a logical decision for me to boycott his
company. Many others feel similarly.

To be fair, at any point he could have said "My views have evolved, and I no
longer think it is my right to deny others marriage.". He chose not to.

~~~
wheaties
Actually, in a free democracy, it is his right to go against others beliefs
and to contribute campaign money to those who hold similar beliefs to himself.
That's what makes this country so great.

------
josephlord
Mozilla is a political organisation not just a pure commercial entity. It has
supporters and a community not just customers and the CEO needs to retain the
support and trust of that community. A CEO with controversial political views
would be a risky choice for this post whatever the subject).

------
joelrunyon
After seeing all this, I wonder what would it take to get the people behind
'the right to marriage' to get the same reaction to 'the right to privacy' \-
which is an arguably more expansive provision that protects literally 100% of
the population?

~~~
jonahx
I agree with your sentiment, and I'm not being facetious when I say the answer
is "a single human being who can be held up as the enemy." The government
seems to be protected in this scandal by its very ubiquity and pervasiveness.
There is no one we can force to step down, no building we can shutter, no
single computer we can turn off that will restore our privacy.

~~~
joelrunyon
It's sad that for "change" to happen, it often requires someone to hate.

------
saikit
What's done is done. But now that Mozilla rid itself one of its best assets,
what's do prevent a rival like Microsoft or Google to hire Eich and have him
work on their products?

~~~
jitl
I doubt any company is chomping at the bit to hire Eich after this fiasco,
regardless of his technical competencies.

~~~
joelrunyon
The irony of this happening in SV where everything is a supposed "meritocracy"
:)

------
nobbyclark
Ummm... so what does gay marriage have to do with browsing the web? FAIL

~~~
jhuckabee
Building a web browser requires that you employee people, some of whom may be
gay. Alienating that entire group of people, and the majority of others who
support them, can certainly put a damper on their motivation to keep that
browser pushing along at full speed.

Definitely not FAIL, this is a big win for Mozilla and civil rights.

~~~
davidgerard
And ... the users. They thought they had the company swung; but there were
boycotts and actually-disgusted end users happening.

