Remember folks: Mozilla is a civil rights organization, not a technology company. They happen to operate in the technology space, but their stated purpose is to safeguard and advance civil rights, not sell technology. A potential CEO's history with regards to civil rights is absolutely relevant with respect to this organization. What Mozilla does and how Mozilla operates should not be viewed through the same lens that we would view a technology company such as Apple, Microsoft, or Oracle.
I'll be honest, I didn't know that at all, and I might look to them less as an example of technology advancement. Why work on programming languages (Rust), running Unreal in the browser, or web standards, if it isn't your goal to advance technology?
technology is neither good nor bad; it's an ongoing process of evolution. It is also a force of power. It is necessary to ensure the safety and liberty of the people that no single monopoly over these technologies exist.
now, let's say some new area of technology emerges. If the only entities capable of wielding that technology are for-profit corporations, the people may find themselves unable to defend themselves against being subject to this technology. And so, in order to maintain the safety of the people, the people must always be abreast of the latest technologies.
They're no less an example of technology advancement because they can be viewed as a civil rights organization. They're at the forefront of technological civil rights. I merely posit that they are not a technology company because I would define a technology company as a company that exists to sell technology for profit. Mozilla does not exist for this purpose: Mozilla exists to safeguard the rights of the many, and they do so by staying at the forefront of technological advancement with regards to The Internet.
And this is part of why I found this whole fiasco so sad. As far as I'm concerned Mozilla is one of the very few technology companies I trust, and they have an enormously important role in safeguarding many of our rights in practice.
I think that this whole affair has deeply harmed them and we need them strong.
The technology that Mozilla produces is of great importance. But that does not mean that all other concerns are totally irrelevant.
Let's use an example where Eich held a really extreme opinion (like, maybe all non-whites in California should be shot on sight, or something ridiculous like that.) There would likely be widespread opposition to his appointment, and I find it difficult to believe that there would be anybody preaching about the unfairness of the "internet lynch mob" then.
Obviously that's not going to happen. But it demonstrates that there's clearly a point at which the personal views of an important public figure like Mozilla's CEO are important. With that agreed, it's obvious that the difference is merely in terms of the importance different people afford it.
Let's say that he did hold that extreme opinion. He's also one person in a greater company and without the direct means to make that interesting viewpoint come to light. It's also unsure if he even had the intention to bring it to fruition.
However, if he did start to act on a plan to bring it to fruition, using the company's resources or heck, even his personal off-time resources, don't you think -that- would be the point at which people should be calling for his ousting?
Hmm, I didn't think about that, good point. To me, they have just always been the group of people that are making a pretty nice browser alternative to IE and adding a key piece to the whole "competition is good for innovation" mantra.
according to their manifesto, their stated purpose is to keep The Internet a free and open platform. It turns out that this does go hand in hand with innovation, and so they are an institution for innovation, but their stated purpose is pretty clearly grounded in user freedom.
Huh. I fail to see how that has to do with this character at all but thank you for the information; I really didn't think Mozilla acted as a pseudo-EFF.
I have no idea. What I'm saying is that it doesn't, in practice, actually matter for those companies, but it does matter for Mozilla. Let's say, hypothetically, the CEO of Apple|Microsoft|Oracle had donated to Proposition 8; that doesn't affect their ability to do their job, because their job has nothing to do with protecting the civil liberties of others. Those companies purpose is to turn a profit for their owners. That is outside of the realm of ethics; it is outside of the realm of what one perceives to be good or bad.
Mozilla, on the other hand, is an organization that is meant to protect people from oppression. For that reason, it is absolutely fundamental that a Mozilla leader have a provably clean civil rights record.
(and I'm pretty sure that Tim Cook doesn't oppose gay rights since he's openly gay.)
Mozilla, on the other hand, is an organization that is meant to protect people from oppression.
What are you talking about? The Mozilla Manifesto says nothing about 'protect' or 'oppression', 'rights', 'civil', 'diversity', 'discrimination', 'orientation' (sexual or otherwise), or 'marriage'.
All but one of their stated principles are about 'the Internet'. Number 8 is about 'transparency promoting participation', which seems to have not worked out so well for the inventor of Javascript.
Tim Cook is gay? It doesn't mention that anywhere on his wikipedia page and I am pretty surprised to hear about it. Inspired, actually, as a gay person that thinks telling people your sexuality is about as relevant in most situations as telling people your favorite flavor of ice cream.
This is like suggesting that, if Mozilla were a big supporter of child slavery, it would be fine, because that's not their market. Suggesting that anything an organization does or represents outside of their core market is irrelevant to their business is a laughable fallacy (and yes, I know that having Eich doesn't explicity give Mozilla an anti-equal-rights position, but the problem was that having him as a figurehead implicitly condoned his behavior, and does implicate them despite whatever statements they might make to the contrary).
