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.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:10PM
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
This is exactly what I have been trying to say.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday April 03 2014, @11:57PM
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
> 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
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
Speech. blah. .
.
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
> 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
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
> privilege
Marriage for the privileged.
(Score: 1) by starcraftsicko on Friday April 04 2014, @09:43AM
*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
> 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
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
> 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.