Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 11 submissions in the queue.
posted by NCommander on Thursday April 03 2014, @07:34PM   Printer-friendly
As of today, Brendan Eich has stepped down as CEO of Mozilla. From the Mozilla blog:

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.

Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He's made this decision for Mozilla and our community.

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.

Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.

As of this time, there is no named successor or statement on who will be taking over Mozilla's leadership.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:22PM

    by Sir Garlon (1264) on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:22PM (#25819)

    At some point I wish we as a society could get it through our heads that two wrongs don't make a right. Grown-ups sometimes have to deal with people who disagree with them. It's hard to see how punishing someone for his past political support is morally superior to punishing someone for his sexual orientation. To me that just looks like two kinds of blind hate, both repugnant.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Interesting=1, Overrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by starcraftsicko on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:45PM

    by starcraftsicko (2821) on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:45PM (#25844) Journal

    This. Exactly this. You can't claim to believe in freedom of speech and still support mob hate of people with different opinions.

    --
    This post was created with recycled electrons.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:10PM

      by pe1rxq (844) on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:10PM (#25863) Homepage

      Bullshit.
      He has freedom of speach. He may voice his opinion, no matter how stupid, but that opinion might influence the behavior of other people.
      And calling for a boycot is not 'mob hate'. They were simply pointing out that he could never fullfill the promisses mozilla made.

      • (Score: 2) by cwix on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:41PM

        by cwix (873) on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:41PM (#25883)

        This is exactly what I have been trying to say.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday April 03 2014, @11:57PM

          by frojack (1554) on Thursday April 03 2014, @11:57PM (#25934) Journal

          And both of you are wrong.

          You've stripped a person of his political free will and his job, on the assumption he couldn't possibly do his job with his set of beliefs.

          That is bigotry pure and simple. Very odd that you claim to be able to detect bigotry in everyone else while being oblivious to your own.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @02:31AM

            by Angry Jesus (182) on Friday April 04 2014, @02:31AM (#26000)

            > You've stripped a person of his political free will and his job,
            > on the assumption he couldn't possibly do his job with his set of beliefs.

            When his expressed and acted on beliefs are in direct contradiction with a portion of the job's responsibilities then to insist that everybody is simply assuming he can't do it is willful blindness.

            Of course, that kind of blindness isn't anything new, we keep hiring telecom lobbyists to run the FCC.

          • (Score: 1) by rochrist on Friday April 04 2014, @08:36PM

            by rochrist (3737) on Friday April 04 2014, @08:36PM (#26371)

            I love the smell of the 'your intolerance or my intolerance is intolerance' argument.!

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by starcraftsicko on Friday April 04 2014, @01:15AM

        by starcraftsicko (2821) on Friday April 04 2014, @01:15AM (#25964) Journal

        Speech. blah. .

        And calling for a boycot is not 'mob hate'.

        .
        Shenanigans on your 'bullshit'. Boycott is exactly the economic expression of mob hate. It may even be justified sometimes, but I'm not sure this is the time.
        .
        Mozilla develops software -- the CEO's political contributions really shouldn't be an issue unless they tie somehow to policy. If Mozilla started blocking sites that supported gay marriage or if the company started firing employees who were gay and married, that'd be a real problem.
        .
        I guess I'll try to make the point by reversing the situation. Do you remember the 'Christian Coalition'? Neither do I -- Not even sure the still exist in as a relevant political force... but I seem to remember that they were the type of faith-based 'family values' organization that would be against 'gay marriage'. So...
        .
        Imagine that Bank Of America promoted an internal employee to CEO. And just for fun, imagine that he once donated $1000 to an organization that was working to defeat Prop8. And that some CC folks found out about this...
        [Why BoA? Because I think they suck. And because their corporate HQ is close to where I think a lot of 'Christian Coalition' folks would stereotypically live.]
        .
        So of course the CC folks protest and announce a boycott and demand his ouster. To be clear, this is not a piddly little OK Cupid web whine boycott. This is several million stereotypical CC sheeple closing real accounts and costing actual shareholders actual money. You bet there'd be a reaction.
        .
        So... please pick YOUR reaction to the story:
        .
        A) Yay CC using your power of FREE SPEECH and the power of the purse to keep people you might disagree with from leading corporations! I fully support your RIGHT to keep people who like gay marriage from ever obtaining positions of power or influence and will declare Bullshit on all who oppose you!
        .
        B) Boo CC for abusing your power of FREE SPEECH and power of the purse to tear down and silence those who disagree with you and were just working to defend the rights of others! I acknowledge your RIGHT to participate but feel it is unreasonable for you to sue that to deny others careers in unrelated areas!
        .
        .
        .
        Mr. Eich participated in a mainstream political discussion and debate. He did so in a very mainstream way by making a small political donation. He wasn't manning barricades, or beating up would-be opponents, or actively terrorizing the opposition. He didn't pour millions into a (super?)PAC. He didn't appear in advertisements or lead rallies. He hasn't used his position(s) of alleged importance to launch attacks against political opponents. Besides that, he may well be a giant douche, but I have no evidence of this.
        .
        He should not have his career options limited in this way.

        --
        This post was created with recycled electrons.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @02:38AM

          by Angry Jesus (182) on Friday April 04 2014, @02:38AM (#26003)

          > Mozilla develops software -- the CEO's political contributions really
          > shouldn't be an issue unless they tie somehow to policy.

          No, developing software is one way in which they implement their vision which is that "openness, innovation and opportunity are key to the continued health of the internet." [mozilla.org] Eichs beliefs and even more importantly his actions are in contradiction with that vision - opportunity only for some is not really opportunity at all, it is privilege.

          • (Score: 1) by starcraftsicko on Friday April 04 2014, @04:03AM

            by starcraftsicko (2821) on Friday April 04 2014, @04:03AM (#26028) Journal

            his actions are in contradiction with that vision - opportunity only for some is not really opportunity at all, it is privilege.

            Not sure what you mean by this enough to respond. Feel free to clarify:
            .
            "his actions" - Anything here other than a political donation? I want to make sure that I'm not missing something. Actions implies plural if nothing else, so feel free to pile on.
            .
            "opportunity only for some is not really opportunity at all" - I really have no idea where you are going here. Giving employment advancement opportunities only to those who march in political lock-step with you does seem contrary to Mozilla's vision, but this doesn't seem to be what you mean in context. So I'm confused.
            .
            "it is privilege" - Again, no idea what you mean? Being a CEO is a privilege? Participation in the political process is a privilege? I'm lost.

            --
            This post was created with recycled electrons.
            • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @06:20AM

              by Angry Jesus (182) on Friday April 04 2014, @06:20AM (#26067)

              > privilege

              Marriage for the privileged.

              • (Score: 1) by starcraftsicko on Friday April 04 2014, @09:43AM

                by starcraftsicko (2821) on Friday April 04 2014, @09:43AM (#26114) Journal

                *sigh* So I'll talk about the underlying issue and express an unpopular opinion.
                .
                Marriage is a privilege in the USofA. Anything that requires the permission of the government, the regulation of the government, the participation of government, is a privilege granted by that government. By demanding the government's recognition and role, you concede their participation and the relegation to privilege. By living in a [pseudo] democracy, you are dependent on the will of the majority for that privilege. Better keep the mobs happy, eh?
                .
                And that regulation is real. This [wikipedia.org] may make interesting reading. Sometimes the government bestows the privilege on the unwilling, to their detriment. And they do this to the cheering of the mobs. They (we?) want this regulation. We limit the types of relationships and the age [about.com] of the participation.
                .
                At least in my lifetime [limited sample >1975], marriage [modern, western, hetero, puritan] has been available to nearly all individuals [age restrictions apply] individuals in the USofA. It's regulated; limited by "tradition" to a single valid combination with occasional, controversial deviations. Anyone can get married, but not any combination. So in spite of the government's participation, the statement that access to marriage has been prohibited to any individual, except due to limited age, is specious.
                .
                Discussion and reconsideration of what combinations of people government(s) what to grant this privilege to has been active of late. Marriage has been conflated with sexual activity [wikipedia.org] despite the fact we've mostly separated these everywhere else in Western society leading to fundamentalism on both sides. Which brings us back to our starting point.
                .
                If government can grant the privilege of marriage based on rules that it thinks are right or just or otherwise correct, it can change its mind about it later if it has a different view of rightness or justness. That makes the Arabian, or the Iranian, or the Chinese, or the Russian or the Texan or the Nigerian position valid (and fundamentally reasonable) in their respective places. I'm not sure I like that; moral relativism can be uncomfortable.
                .
                If government MUST ACCEPT different combinations if a court or political figure or mob says so, then it's participation is meaningless and wasteful. Even seeking the consent or participation of government is pointless as their consent indicates nothing.
                .
                If only one set of rules can EVER be right or just or valid, then government can be a gatekeeper enforcing those rules. Problem here is that our best justifications tend to be traditional (often expressed as religious), and we get stumped when we try to dig into "why". And if the rules can change -- gay marriage -- we get pushed back on the prior cases.
                .
                My view - Unless government wants to be in the business of criminalizing reproduction between unmarried individuals, they should get out of the marriage business altogether. Those positions are philosophically consistent - others trip on their own hypocrisy pretty quick. The current situation and the fundamentalisms created are monumentally dumb. The current situation fails the "why" test as surely as the the traditional.
                .
                But getting someone fired for participation in protected political speech (SCOTUS says spending = speech) reeks of mob fundamentalism at best and victor's justice at worst. If we want to live in a world where that's acceptable, we had best recognize that others can do the same. So... go Vikings! [cbsnews.com]?

                --
                This post was created with recycled electrons.
                • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @12:18PM

                  by Angry Jesus (182) on Friday April 04 2014, @12:18PM (#26144)

                  > But getting someone fired for participation in protected political speech

                  Skipped most of your sophistry, but that particular bit is such a common meme it needs to be quashed.

                  Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences for your speech. If you have a job that depends on public opinion then losing your job because of public opinion is part of the deal. If you can't handle that risk, don't take that kind of job in the first place.

                  Your personal problem here is that you don't agree with public opinion. Own that instead of trying to employ pretzel logic to dance around it.

                  • (Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday April 04 2014, @01:55PM

                    by Sir Garlon (1264) on Friday April 04 2014, @01:55PM (#26189)

                    It's possible to agree that gay people should be able to get married if they want, yet disagree with tarring and feathering someone who opposes that position.

                    --
                    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
                    • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @03:29PM

                      by Angry Jesus (182) on Friday April 04 2014, @03:29PM (#26237)

                      > It's possible to agree that gay people should be able to get married if they want,
                      > yet disagree with tarring and feathering someone who opposes that position.

                      This isn't about just someone. This is about someone who wanted to represent an organization that claims a set of principles in contradiction with that belief.

                      Every time someone defends Eich they have to leave out part of the story. That you have to lie through omission to make your point pretty much proves your point is invalid.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by GeminiDomino on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:54PM

    by GeminiDomino (661) on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:54PM (#25851)

    Ah, the old "If you're against intolerance, you have to tolerate intolerance" dodge.

    It wasn't particularly clever the first time it was attempted, and hasn't become any more so in its endless echoing.

    --
    "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
    • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by Tork on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:57PM

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:57PM (#25853)
      Rush Limbaugh uses that debate tactic a lot, especially on the topic of the "Republican War on Women". His typical rebuttal is that somebody on the Left called Sarah Palin a name.
      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:17PM

    by TheGratefulNet (659) on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:17PM (#25865)

    a big diff: our hate of him takes him out of power. his funding/hate for gays removes their rights.

    which is better: that one man lose his job or that so many others lose a right they should not be losing?

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    • (Score: 2) by threedigits on Friday April 04 2014, @08:13AM

      by threedigits (607) on Friday April 04 2014, @08:13AM (#26091)

      our hate of him takes him out of power

      What power? The power of leading a free browser development organization?

      No, face it as it is: your deliberated hate actions make his life more miserable, just because he has different beliefs than you. I'm deeply sorry, but I cannot support this kind of behaviour.

      • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday April 04 2014, @09:18PM

        by TheGratefulNet (659) on Friday April 04 2014, @09:18PM (#26398)

        he can have different beliefs all he wants.

        what he CANNOT be allowed to do is to force others (by rule of law) to follow HIS views.

        his views are toxic. he's an asshole (by his views, alone, I can say this confidently). also he created javascript so that makes him double the asshole (sorry..)

        my hate is for him, alone. he wants to restrict other peoples' freedom. not one person but everyone who fits into this group of people he seems to think are 'wrong'.

        hating one person for trying to force his views on everyone else is not a bad thing.

        hating a whole group of people because they believe differently AND trying to take away their rights is quite evil.

        again, this is not moral relativism. there IS an absolute right and wrong here. only christians and muslims seem to absolutely hate gays. other religions don't universally have a problem with them and most modern non-religious people also have no problems with gays.

        gays are the new 'blacks'. it was wrong to hate black people and to remove their rights and its equally as wrong to hate gays and to try to remove their rights.

        all based on his christian views. what a fucking waste. I never understood why christians have to get 'in other peoples shit' so much. why can't they just accept that their views are not held by everyone and leave it at that? why FORCE everyone to adopt their tiny narrow world views? no one ever voted them speakers for the whole world or even the US.

        --
        "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
        • (Score: 2) by threedigits on Tuesday April 08 2014, @04:10PM

          by threedigits (607) on Tuesday April 08 2014, @04:10PM (#28252)

          OK, let's dot a few "i" and cross a few "t":

          what he CANNOT be allowed to do is to force others (by rule of law) to follow HIS views.

          AFAIK, this is NOT what the law proposal he backed was about. It did not criminalize gays or their union, just the ability to call their union "marriage".

          his views are toxic. he's an asshole

          I translate that as "I don't like him". So what?

          my hate is for him, alone

          Hate is not a positive feeling. You will do bad if you let it drive your decisions.

          he wants to restrict other peoples' freedom.

          That's right. That's what laws are about.

          hating one person for trying to force his views on everyone else is not a bad thing.

          Yes, it is. Arguing is right, as is opposing to. Hating is another thing altogether.

          hating a whole group of people because they believe differently AND trying to take away their rights is quite evil.

          I haven't seen hate in any of his actions. He has a moral position, which may be wrong, but doesn't imply hate.

          there IS an absolute right and wrong here.

          My personal observation is that right or wrong are always relative to who you ask. For example, you may consider which evil is greater: opposing gay marriage (which is something that can be reverted) or banning someone from a job for his political positions (which cannot be undone). Consider that here Mozilla as a whole has suffered as much damage as Eich. I personally find the second one much worse.

          all based on his Christian views.

          So, are christians the next "blacks"? Please, don't do that. Use your reason, and do not spread hate. Specially undiscriminating hate.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:53PM

    by Angry Jesus (182) on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:53PM (#25888)

    > It's hard to see how punishing someone for his past political support is
    > morally superior to punishing someone for his sexual orientation.

    You seem to be the kind of person who confuses the form of a thing with the meaning of a thing.

    Eich actively tried to hurt other people who had never done a thing to hurt him or anyone else. Forcing him to resign as a consequence for hurting other people is not in any way equivalent.

    • (Score: 0) by starcraftsicko on Friday April 04 2014, @01:28AM

      by starcraftsicko (2821) on Friday April 04 2014, @01:28AM (#25969) Journal

      Eich actively tried to hurt other people

      Who and how?
      .
      Eich participated in a mainstream political discussion/movement in a mainstream and minimal way. He was not the face of the movement. He was not the voice of the movement. He did not mastermind the movement. He was not even a major contributor to the movement.
      .
      Maybe he hurt some feelings?

      --
      This post was created with recycled electrons.
      • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @02:25AM

        by Angry Jesus (182) on Friday April 04 2014, @02:25AM (#25996)

        He paid people to try to prevent gay people from being full fledged members of society.

        All that "mainstream" stuff is hooey. People were saying the same thing about emancipation and miscegenation -- being "mainstream" doesn't make it any less harmful to the people who were hurt, nor does being a follower rather than a leader excuse it either.

        • (Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday April 04 2014, @06:41AM

          by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 04 2014, @06:41AM (#26069) Journal

          And you're successfully preventing non-gay people from being fully fledged members of society.

          Or are you really going to "answer" "only if they speak"? What you're showing or supporting isn't pride, nowhere close. At best you're being used.

          --
          Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @09:36AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @09:36AM (#26109)

            How far right wing does one have to consider "not a CEO" equivalent to "not a fully fledged member of society"?

            Nobody said he couldn't work at Mozilla. He could be the CFO. Nobody cares about a CFO. He could possibly even be a CTO, though the developers might care too much in that case.

            But the CEO is personifying the image of the company. By making him CEO, they were endorsing his views.

            Also, note that Mozilla is allowed to endorse those views, if that's the image they want. Just like Chick-Fil-A is allowed to. But in that case, they shouldn't expect us to buy/use their products.

            Chick-Fil-A was fine with that image. Mozilla was not. That's the difference.

            • (Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday April 04 2014, @04:01PM

              by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 04 2014, @04:01PM (#26254) Journal

              One doesn't have to be anything at all: what you're saying is that some jobs aren't allowed for $group, it doesn't matter if your $group is gays, non-gays, whites, blacks, catholics, protestants, atheists, communists, socialists, nazis, democrats, republicans, or anything else.

              Minorities won't win such fights so in effect this is minorities dismantling legal protection for minorities.

              --
              Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
    • (Score: 2) by hubie on Friday April 04 2014, @01:32AM

      by hubie (1068) on Friday April 04 2014, @01:32AM (#25971) Journal

      I think there can be quite a difference between having a moral objection to something and actively trying to hurt other people.

      • (Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @02:21AM

        by Angry Jesus (182) on Friday April 04 2014, @02:21AM (#25993)

        Yes, there certainly can be. But he didn't just object, he acted by paying people to try to stop gay people from marrying.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @12:48AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @12:48AM (#25952)

    "Grown-ups sometimes have to deal with people who disagree with them."

    Disagreement is one thing.

    Eich actively attempted to CONTROL THE LIVES OF OTHERS.

    If you cannot discern the difference you are, quite frankly, mentally deficient.

    I am a straight guy who likes women a lot, but I am disgusted by bigots
    like Eich who want to force others to conform to their world view. Such
    people are the enemy of all freedom loving humans.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @01:29AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @01:29AM (#25970)

      That's why you try very hard to force them to conform to your world view, because YOUR world view is, by definition, the right one.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @09:40AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @09:40AM (#26111)

        Nobody is trying to make him conform to anything.

        We just don't want to use Mozilla products (like Firefox) as the same time as Mozilla has him as CEO.

        It's up to Mozilla to decide whether they want to continue endorsing his views (making someone a CEO is the biggest endorsement a company can give him), or they want to keep us as Firefox users. They have made their choice.

        He is now free to be as much of a bigot as he wants to be, without worrying about how that affects the image of Mozilla.