If you think I haven't heard this argument multiple times you're very wrong. It's well known in certain circles that this is the _correct_ view of the situation and you're not the first to graciously assume I simply haven't been exposed to it.
On this point we disagree, and my post is about what happens when we disagree, that it's not OK for me to disagree. That it's wrong, fundamentally wrong, so wrong it can only be due to stupidity or bigotry on my part.
Really I just have different views of what it means to be inclusive.
In the past 25 years I've seen an absolutely huge amount of compromise coming from mainstream America and the Christians especially when it comes to the LGBT community. I don't think it's too much to ask that when Eich was sitting there waiting at the negotiating table that the LGBT community would at least show up and try to find a compromise.
This wasn't a Bible-thumper screaming "you're all going to hell!!!" It was the CEO of a very important Open Source project saying "Let's sit down and talk, I'm willing to put in the time and energy to work this out." But the torches had been lit, the pitchforks sharpened, and the rest is history.
Regarding finding a compromise, I'm sure if Eich donated to equal rights after becoming CEO, nobody would have any qualms working for his organization anymore. Even the pitchforks and the most bloodthirsty protesters would likely have gone. That he didn't even try to correct the issue made it more likely that progressive coders would turn away.
The depth of the thread seems to have reached a HN limit, so I can't respond, but you're now confusing Eich's treatment with whether he should be CEO of Mozilla. Eich in a non-coding role is not worth X coders moving to a competing browser for any X greater than 0. Being inclusive to employees is a separate issue from making employees actually want to work for him. A CEO who has worked to set up Sharia law will have a hard time getting people who support women's rights working for him even if he treats his own women employees fairly.
So he was being publicly shamed and humiliated until he A) was fired B) resigned or C) renounced his personal beliefs? That's horrible. When gay people are treated this way I speak out and say it's wrong. When gay people treat people this way I speak out and say it's wrong.
> That he didn't even try to correct the issue made it more likely that progressive coders would turn away.
And it would take a lot of "progressive coders" to make up for Mozilla losing its CEO/co-founder who had been working on Firefox since it was called Netscape Navigator and who just happened to be the creator of JavaScript.
He was shamed for having shameful views, yes. "Personal beliefs" isn't a get-out-of-public-reproach-free card.
No one was compelled by any force of law here, either--he had beliefs that no longer meshed with contemporary views on equality and rights, and his peers, subordinates, and the world at large made it clear they didn't deem this appropriate.
> Q: Was Brendan Eich forced out by employee pressure?
> A: No. Mozilla employees expressed a wide range of views on Brendan’s appointment as CEO: the majority of them positive and in support of his leadership, or expressing disappointment in Brendan’s support of Proposition 8 but that they nonetheless felt he would be a good leader for Mozilla. A small number (fewer than 10) called for his resignation, none of whom reported to Brendan directly. However media coverage focused disproportionately on the small number of negative comments — largely ignoring the wide range of reactions across the Mozilla community.
That's horrible. When gay people are treated this way I speak out and say it's wrong. When gay people treat people this way I speak out and say it's wrong.
I think it's a little hard to make this comparison. Eich's position was in favor of taking away the rights of others. I'm fine with people having views I don't agree with, until those views affect others negatively.
> Regarding finding a compromise, I'm sure if Eich donated to equal rights after becoming CEO, nobody would have any qualms working for his organization anymore. Even the pitchforks and the most bloodthirsty protesters would likely have gone. That he didn't even try to correct the issue
Eich contributed to the creation of the equal rights policy in Mozilla and worked to enforce that inclusive policy. He made a commitment to uphold those policies. No GLBT person at Mozila had examples of him being discriminatory.
Quoting from my previous post: "A CEO who has worked to set up Sharia law will have a hard time getting people who support women's rights working for him even if he treats his own women employees fairly."
On this point we disagree, and my post is about what happens when we disagree, that it's not OK for me to disagree. That it's wrong, fundamentally wrong, so wrong it can only be due to stupidity or bigotry on my part.
Really I just have different views of what it means to be inclusive.
In the past 25 years I've seen an absolutely huge amount of compromise coming from mainstream America and the Christians especially when it comes to the LGBT community. I don't think it's too much to ask that when Eich was sitting there waiting at the negotiating table that the LGBT community would at least show up and try to find a compromise.
This wasn't a Bible-thumper screaming "you're all going to hell!!!" It was the CEO of a very important Open Source project saying "Let's sit down and talk, I'm willing to put in the time and energy to work this out." But the torches had been lit, the pitchforks sharpened, and the rest is history.