1. You can't throw a fucking stone in this city without hitting some incompetent straight white male asshole considered worthy of being a CEO. … YOU CAN'T FIND ONE THAT DIDN'T DONATE TO PROP 8?!?!?!
2. ain, i cannot emphasize enough that Mozilla leadership was COMPLETELY AWARE of the reaction this news would cause. … The pain, tumult, debate, controversy, alienation happening in the community was a calculated risk they took. They were OK with it.
I think the pushback is fair, but I think Eich has done as well as he could, given what he did, in reassuring the tech community that he supports Mozilla's very inclusive employment policies, and in recognizing how this is difficult for a lot LBGT Mozillians and that he needs to step up and be the one who reassures.
I suspect that any apology for or defense of the donation now would make the debate about the donation and prop 8, which is really in no one's interest (besides looking opportunistic).
I suspect he's got a really stupid techno-libertarian rationale for it
Hackerdom easily tolerates a much wider range of sexual and lifestyle variation than the mainstream culture. It includes a relatively large gay and bisexual contingent. Hackers are somewhat more likely to live in polygynous or polyandrous relationships, practice open marriage, or live in communes or group houses. In this, as in general appearance, hackerdom semi-consciously maintains ‘counterculture’ values.
And if you empty out every person who has ever made a donation to a conservative cause you're going to have some mighty empty boardrooms.
I do not like the tendency to drag people personal lives into their professional capacities.
Some Mozillians may identify with activities or organizations that do not support the same inclusion and diversity standards as Mozilla. When this is the case:
(a) support for exclusionary practices must not be carried into Mozilla activities.
(b) support for exclusionary practices in non-Mozilla activities should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces.
(c) when if (a) and (b) are met, other Mozillians should treat this as a private matter, not a Mozilla issue.
Which does seem pretty weird when you wonder if a high-profile organization like Mozilla wouldn't ask around and see if the choice might be really upsetting to a sizable number of their own employees.
Cattle die, kindred die; all are mortal, but the good name never dies of one who has done well. Or the bad name of those who have done evil, but if their code was good, we keep using it until something better comes along. You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who condones Hans Reiser’s murder of his wife, but a hell of a lot of people still use his filesystem.
Do they ban same sex benefits, or trans benefits, or campaign, as a corporation, against gay rights? If not, who cares what their officers do?
It bothers me. I feel triggered sometimes knowing that there are leaders there who take me as less than .
All I know is I can't keep pretending like I'm cool with it. I'm not cool and it's a big part of why I moved away from Mozilla personally .
Three Mozilla board members resigned over the choice of Brendan Eich, a Mozilla co-founder, as the new CEO. Gary Kovacs, a former Mozilla CEO who runs online security company AVG Technologies; John Lilly, another former Mozilla CEO now a partner at venture-capital firm Greylock Partners; and Ellen Siminoff, CEO of online education startup Shmoop, left the board last week.
The departures leave three people on the Mozilla board: co-founder Mitchell Baker; Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, and Katharina Borchert, chief executive of German news site Spiegel Online.
"The three board members ended their terms last week for a variety of reasons. Two had been planning to leave for some time, one since January and one explicitly at the end of the CEO search, regardless of the person selected."
"He needs to have a come to Jesus moment."
""Thoughtcrime"? Donating $1000 is not a "thought", it's an action. Taking concrete action to have other peoples marriages annulled is not a fucking difference of opinion."
""Which are still actions and not simply thoughts. Donating money to something and becoming a member of something are both actions, and to characterize them as "thoughtcrimes" as some sort of defensive diminishing of them is unworthy of you."
"Because, equating the current PR mess with, if I'm reading that comment correctly, gulags and Stalinism? I don't even."
"I get that you don't think he should be pilloried the way he's being pilloried, here or elsewhere. But acknowedge that he still did a thing, not merely think it. You're still allowed to defend him and to think what he did is not as bad as what other people have done without diminishing it by calling it something it's not."
"It's a pretty weird turn of language to equate the act of questioning someone actively involved in taking away our rights with 1950s Communism."
Mozilla is viable ^-------+-------+
| B | D |
| | |
| A | C |
| | |
Mozilla is terminal o-------+------->
| Mozilla is relevant
Mozilla is irrelevant
Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.
Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there’s a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we’re asserting ourselves today. This is why: we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.
"Members of the Association of Motion Picture Producers deplore the action of the 10 Hollywood men who have been cited for contempt by the House of Representatives. We do not desire to prejudge their legal rights, but their actions have been a disservice to their employers and have impaired their usefulness to the industry.
"We will forthwith discharge or suspend without compensation those in our employ, and we will not re-employ any of the 10 until such time as he is acquitted or has purged himself of contempt and declares under oath that he is not a Communist....
I've read plenty of opinions that say you're entitled to your own opinions and political beliefs. But there are other folks who say your stance is the equivalent of overt racism or sexism. That's a firing offense and gets politicians thrown out of office. What's your response to that?
Eich: I don't believe that's true, on the basis of what's permissible to support or vote on in 2008. It's still permissible. Beliefs that are protected, that include political and religious speech, are generally not something that can be held against even a CEO. I understand there are people who disagree with me on this one.
“We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.”
Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.
Baker — who became emotional at one point during the interview — noted that she was “doing a fair amount of self-reflection and I am wondering how did I miss it that this would matter more when he was the CEO.”
But each of their departures seems to have been only tangentially related to Eich’s appointment — though none of them supported his selection as CEO, according to numerous sources, for other reasons — and not to the controversy over Prop 8.
we were so hopeful that when he was asked the question about if he’d vote for Prop 8 again that he’d say, “You know, my personal beliefs are very strongly held, so those haven’t changed. But I have realized after talking to so many people affected by the law in ways I didn’t intend, that the law itself should treat us all equally.”
That would have been victory. And that’s why we are so sad.
I may get to it, but not working at Mozilla. I’ve resigned as CEO and I’m leaving Mozilla to take a rest, take some trips with my family, look at problems from other angles, and see if the “network problem” has a solution that doesn’t require scaling up to hundreds of millions of users and winning their trust while somehow covering costs. That’s a rare, hard thing, which I’m proud to have done with Firefox at Mozilla.
I encourage all Mozillians to keep going. Firefox OS is even more daunting, and more important. Thanks indeed to all who have supported me, and to all my colleagues over the years, at Mozilla, in standards bodies, and at conferences around the world. I will be less visible online, but still around.
...he's a guy who's happy to throw the queers under a bus...
...He's a hard-core bigot, full stop....
...we now have to choose between an awesome browser whose company's CEO is a bigot and...
So does a committed Catholic who follows the teachings of the Pope now have to take an affirmative, public position in support of gay marriage in order to be deemed CEO material?
What if we found out that instead of donating $1000 to the Prop 8 campaign, we simply learned that Eich voted for the proposition.
And will members of religious orders that oppose same sex marriage (Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews, most Muslims and many Hindus) need to publicly distance themselves from those teachings to be considered for high-ranking corporate positions?
"I'm sure BobbyVan will have my back when I, an atheist whose sincerely held religious beliefs include easy access to contraception, am gunning for that high level executive position at Hobby Lobby."
"That's the epiphany I had a few days ago. This is it. Right now, this is the time when decent people realize opposing gay marriage is an unacceptable denial of civil rights. Standing up to someone like Eich and demanding he reconcile his opposition to gay marriage is how our culture evolves its views on these things. The pendulum just swung, at least in the world of free software non-profits, and Eich is on the wrong side. This moment, now, this is the advance."
"I can tell you haven't done us the courtesy of reading the discussion here before asking your question, since right before you asked this question you did a drive-by dump of two links the rest of us here have been discussing for most of a day now. So maybe you missed my comment where I talk about how the story crested back in 2012."
"McCarthyism has a lot of parallels to Eich attemting to use the propagandistic lies to influence the power of the California government to force a more narrow and conservative world on people he considers less-than."
"McCarthyism relied on governmental power (the hearings) to fire people from their jobs for their presumed views."
He is being described now as a bigot and "filled with hatred" because he believes that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. He tried to hang on when the controversy hit. He said, "Look, my personal political views have nothing to do with the way I plan on running Mozilla." That didn't fly. They had to get the scalp. They had to take him out. They had to send a message to anybody else that your view must comply.
If you are in the tech industry, and if you work anywhere in the tech business, and you're gonna become a powerful executive anywhere, you had better toe the line. You had better be in favor of everything the militant gay activists are in favor of or we're gonna claim your scalp. We're going to destroy your career. And everybody is afraid of them. So Brendan Eich is gone, for the identical position that President Barack Obama held at the exact same time, in 2008.
The early refrain about what’s happened here—that the evil, intolerant, nationally-organized, left-gay-liberal mobilization machine took another scalp, for bloodsport!—doesn’t quite add up. The real story is much more interesting: that a confluence of factors very specific to the Mozilla Corporation, by the nature of its product, its industry, and its geographical location, make what happened to Eich almost non-transferable to what could happen to companies on a wider spectrum.
“Liberals,” writ-large, did not force Eich’s resignation. Most “liberals” probably hadn’t, and still haven’t, heard of the guy. Rather, there appear to have been two specific factors that led to his ouster: internal dissent within Mozilla, and, well, the OkCupid dating website.
"And that was the two-day cost of their decision, a decision to hire married gay folk, a decision that was decided on last fall and leaked to Christianity Today last week. That was the cost.
Last Monday, the day of the announcement, World Vision’s call center received 7000 calls and a loss of 2000 child sponsorships. That’s just in 12 hours on Monday! The following day those numbers swelled. And then on Wednesday, within minutes of World Vision announcing that it was reversing its decision, the calls stopped and, according to Stearns, “the bleeding stopped.”"
Brendan’s biggest flaw, IMHO, was his inability to connect and empathize with people. I’ve seen and felt that over the years, finding Bredan brilliant, but distant. And you certainly saw it this past week, as many calm and reasonable people said “Brendan, I want you to lead Mozilla. But I also want you to feel my pain.” Brendan didn’t need to change his mind on Proposition 8 to get out of the crisis of the past week. He simply needed to project and communicate empathy.
If you jump to paint Mozilla in the colours of ‘the opposition’, that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. And the world will be poorer for it.
Sam Yagan is the co-founder of OkCupid and CEO of Match.com, OkCupid’s parent company... Sam Yagan made a $500 donation to U.S. Congressman Chris Cannon in 2004. Cannon has a special kind of hate for gays. The Human Rights Campaign gave him a 0% rating on supporting gay rights. He voted no on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. He voted for a ban on gay adoptions. And he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as man/woman only.
My understanding (which may be incorrect) was that he was initially reluctant to be considered as a CEO candidate. If that’s the case he probably wishes that he had followed that first impulse, as then he would still be CTO of Mozilla and any controversy about his 2008 donation regarding that position (as there was, by all indication) already baked in and dealt with.
Material support for an initiative may be construed as speech, but it’s much much more than that: it’s a direct attempt to use the coercive power of the state to remove other people’s rights. This distinction matters, it seems to me, when determining how we think about the speech/action boundary.
Second, he gave material support to a campaign whose central strategy was to dishonestly and maliciously promote the idea that LGBT people living their lives openly and as full citizens constituted nothing less than a clear and present danger to the welfare of children.
"Given the recent, well-publicized episodes of gay employees being fired from Catholic institutions when the institutions found out they'd married their partners, I think it's a bit over-the-top to claim that anyone is being out-tolerated by the Catholics. Tell that to Mark Zmuda."
I'm going to gently suggest that if you're taking you're moral cues from bigots, and specifically them being bigoted, you're probably doing it wrong.
Increasingly, opposition to gay marriage is being equated with racism — as indefensible, un-American. “What was once a wedge issue became wrapped in the American flag,” said Jo Becker, a Times writer whose sweeping history of the marriage-equality movement, “Forcing the Spring,” will be published this month. Becker mentioned what she called a rebranding of the movement over the last five years, with two important components. First, gay marriage was framed in terms of family values. Second, advocates didn’t shame opponents and instead made sympathetic public acknowledgment of the journey that many Americans needed to complete in order to be comfortable with marriage equality.
There was no such acknowledgment from Mozilla employees and others who took to Twitter to condemn Eich and call for his head. Writing about that wrath in his blog, The Dish, Andrew Sullivan said that it disgusted him, “as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society.” A leading supporter of gay marriage, Sullivan warned other supporters not to practice “a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else.”
I can’t get quite as worked up as he did. For one thing, prominent gay rights groups weren’t part of the Mozilla fray. For another, Mozilla isn’t the first company to make leadership decisions (or reconsiderations) with an eye toward the boss’s cultural mind-meld with the people below him or her. And if you believe that to deny a class of people the right to marry is to deem them less worthy, it’s indeed difficult to chalk up opposition to marriage equality as just another difference of opinion.
But it’s vital to remember how very recently so many of equality’s promoters, like Obama and Clinton, have come around and how relatively new this conversation remains. It’s crucial not to lose sight of how well the movement has been served by the less judgmental posture that Becker pointed out.
Sullivan is right to raise concerns about the public flogging of someone like Eich. Such vilification won’t accelerate the timetable of victory, which is certain. And it doesn’t reflect well on the victors.
Gary Kovacs and Ellen Siminoff had previously stated they had plans to leave as soon as Mozilla chose the next CEO. John Lilly did not resign over Proposition 8 or any concerns about Brendan’s personal beliefs.
First, the idea that “Americans are generous and good-hearted people who give every indication of being well-disposed toward letting their gay neighbors go about their private affairs with liberty and dignity” is a bizarre one. When cultural conservatives could summon the political power to do so, they legally forbade gay acts with anti-sodomy laws. These laws only came off the book because the Supreme Court eventually struck them down, much to the great and continued horror of cultural conservatives. From that loss, cultural conservatives — including Mozilla’s Brendan Eich — have basically used every tool in their toolbox to fight against gays, whether by defining the laws so as to prevent their marriages or using civil and market power to ostracize them. Americans are becoming more willing to allow gays to “go about their private affairs with liberty and dignity,” but that’s only because cultural conservatives who have never been willing to do that are losing.
Second, and more importantly, I suspected that those who parroted Williamson’s remarks here, and perhaps Williamson himself, didn’t actually believe what he was writing. When the question is whether we should pass laws to sanction anti-gay animus, it’s all well and good to say that we shouldn’t because market coercion (boycotts) and civil coercion (shunning) are much better instruments. This allows you to oppose the legal reforms while still maintaining that you are against anti-gay actions and that you have alternative mechanisms to deal with them.
But will you actually hold consistent in that view when people turn to using the market and civil channels that you said were better suited to the task? Should someone take you up on your suggestion that they use the surgical precision offered by the battlefield of civil society to make these reforms, will you actually be cool with that? It struck me at the time that the answer was almost certainly no: if you are a cultural conservative, you don’t think anybody should be sanctioned for their anti-gay attitudes and actions no matter where that sanction comes from.
All of the arguments stated here about the CEO would apply equally to Joe Manager
What is an "agree to disagree" issue?
[P]luralism is not a one-way street: If you want (as I do) a culture where Catholic schools and hospitals and charities are free to be Catholic, where evangelical-owned businesses don’t have to pay for sterilizations and the days-after pill, where churches and synagogues and mosques don’t have to worry about their tax-exempt status if they criticize “sexual modernity,” you also have to acknowledge the rights of non-religious institutions of all sorts to define their own missions in ways that might make an outspoken social conservative the wrong choice for an important position within their hierarchies.
Or to bring it to a still-blunter point: In the name of pluralism, and the liberty of groups as well as individuals, I would gladly trade the career prospects of some religious conservatives in some situations — not exempting myself from that list — if doing so would protect my own church’s liberty (and the liberties of other, similarly-situated groups) to run its schools and hospitals and charities as it sees fit. But the specifics of the way that Eich was treated, the demands made and the tests imposed, makes me a little more worried that such a deal, and such a pluralism, may not ultimately be on offer.
« Older What's the matter with Kansas? It's the crippling ... | In this reddit music thread, J... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt