Mozilla employees tell Brendan Eich he needs to “step down”

http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/mozilla-employees-to-brendan-eich-step-down/

by steveklabnik • 12 years ago

97 218 12 years ago

circuiter2• 12 years ago

If these are the kind of people working at Mozilla it's no surprise Firefox has been continuously losing market share to both Chrome and IE over the past 3 years.

m0a0t011• 12 years ago

I don't think one person criticising another is going to cause a massive drop in market share.

You really are being a little silly

circuiter2• 12 years ago

Did you read my entire comment? Notice how I said "over the past 3 years".

eigenvector• 12 years ago

The fact that they can come out and say this demonstrates that these employees, the people best able to assess this, don't believe that Eich will retaliate. That Mozilla is and remains a place where any employee can express their views on political issues, even if they know they're contrary to the CEO's. And that destroys any argument for Eich's role as CEO creating a conflict with Mozilla's ability to welcome LGBTQ employees and community members.

You have a right to work for whom you choose, but not to demand that everyone above you in a company concurs with your political views. This is the social media witch hunts we've seen in last few years reaching into actual corporate boardrooms and tossing out a man's career because he holds a view that is not only mainstream, but that he has demonstrated he won't bring into the workplace.

Let me be clear: I believe Brendan Eich is wrong about gay marriage. But I don't think the price of his convictions should be his career at Mozilla, a company he's played a large role in building, when there is no documented instance of him ever disparaging or otherwise harming LGBTQ employees or community members.

angersock4• 12 years ago

Yeah, wouldn't it be terrible if you were persecuted and had your career ruined because of your perceived feelings on marriage or political commentary/donations?

EDIT: Downvote away, but it's pretty obvious that these folks are abusing the freedom they have to attack somebody who deserves our respect and admiration, and are tarnishing the reputation of their cause.

This witch-hunt isn't helping anyone--it's saying that those involved care more about politics and sex and gender and bullshit than about creating good code and leading well and supporting freedom.

TDL3• 12 years ago

This isn't a witch hunt. Publicly professing your convictions has ramifications.

"these folks are abusing the freedom they have to attack somebody..." What abuse? These people are exercising their freedom. Their freedom of speech, their freedom of association. There is no abuse here, this is exactly what people have a right to do.

"politics and sex and gender and bullshit..." There is more to life than technical ability.

davidgerard2• 12 years ago

when there is no documented instance of him ever disparaging or otherwise harming LGBTQ employees or community members.

Except the bit where he contributed $1000 to a campaign to vilify them and take away their rights.

angersock4• 12 years ago

Here's the proposition's full text:

http://www.ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initi...

It hardly vilifies anyone--it's pretty stupidly worded as is ("marriage"? What is that? How does it compare with "civil union"?)

Look, did you vote for Obama or Bush? Then you too have actively vilified people and acted to take away their rights.

We can't punish people for participating in our form of government, even if we disagree with them. Aaargh.

jrs2352• 12 years ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7483726

stormcrowsx• 12 years ago

Eich was actively trying to stop what many people think should be a human right. He should face flak, and get a hard time over it, they should threaten his position. Even if they don't get him out of CEO it will make the next idiot that's high up in a company think twice before donating to stop human rights.

simias2• 12 years ago

Come on, he didn't fund the war in Uganda. I don't share his views or anything but I don't see why "not liking the gays" or whatever should have any influence at all on whether or not he's suitable to run a tech company. It's not a political office.

sergiosgc4• 12 years ago

(touching this issue with all due care as not to call in the activists; read all the way through before replying)

Redefinition of marriage is not a human right, sorry. I can't decide I'd like to marry my work and have society accept that as marriage. Marriage has a definition, that up until now hasn't included gay couples. Changing that is not trivial, is not a law of nature and is not supportable on human rights grounds.

Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that gay couples are already free to live together and enjoy the protection given to married couples: inheritance, hospital/prison visiting rights, IRS deductions, [whatever social right I may be missing]. I know that is not the case; bear with me.

Now, imagine that a group wants to reserve the right to call marriage limited to a long term commitment between man and woman. Also imagine that gay couples want to call their long term commitment a marriage.

Now, you have an unsolvable problem. Both groups may argue that it is their right to define what marriage is all the way to the end of times. The problem is mostly with the naming of the concept; it is not with rights attributed to gay couples. Framing the discussion around the concept is actually hurting LGBTQ movements.

My personal opinion? Grant all, and I mean all rights to gay couples that classic couples have. Use the first-come-first-served rule and maintain the term marriage to mean a classic family. Create a new term for gay couples.

Give it two generations and this whole shout war will subside, and by then everyone will naturally call gay couples married couples, just like any other. In the mean time, important goals can be reached faster (like visiting rights).

mquander2• 12 years ago

I don't know what the price of Eich's convictions should be, but I think that a good way to find out is for people who have been strongly affected by his convictions to say clearly what they think about it.

I don't know whether Eich will (or should) remain CEO, but whether he does or not, having people speak up in this fashion seems unambiguously positive.

joyeuse67012• 12 years ago

No, it's not always positive. Mob mentality like this could be 'good' when applied to civil rights, the fact that he is not a minority and his views not popular in the zeitgeist makes him a good target. Of course this sort of things is considered bad when the target is a minority. Basically, what matters is whether or not you are part of a group that is perceived to have power. That will determine how the mob treats you.

derefr• 12 years ago

strongly affected by his convictions

These sorts of convictions, that people hold on controversial topics, are like the (modern, non-fundamentalist) practice of religion: something you speak about to espouse your identification with a group, but which holds no sway one way or another with your day-to-day decision-making. They are, in Robin Hanson's terms, "far-mode beliefs."

And, as with the (modern, non-fundamentalist) practice of religion, the best attitude to follow, I think, is "as long as it doesn't affect anything important [like someone else's life], you can think whatever you like." This attitude allows people with diametrically-opposed far-mode beliefs to get along.

hkphooey10• 12 years ago

People are employed on what they contribute to the company, not on their social or political views.

If these employees are such bigots and fascists, that they can't fathom someone having a different opinion to their own, they should resign and work elsewhere.

Mozilla is a technology company with the mission to promote a free and open web. If these employees believed that Mozilla was some kind of political organisation, they are wrong and have been deluding themselves.

m0a0t011• 12 years ago

So preventing equality is not bigotry then? I would argue that calling out something like that is noble, not fascist.

Labelling the people who criticised Eich as fascists is as bad as calling him one for his beliefs.

TDL3• 12 years ago

Please articulate how they are being bigots. Also, how exactly are they fascists? I don't see any of them advocating for the subjugation of individuality or economic freedom for the furtherance of the state. Fascism has an actual meaning, it's not just some mud to sling around.

hapless3• 12 years ago

We have secret ballots for a reason: what you do in public has consequences.

When you speak in public, it's possible that you will face censure from your employers, your employees, or your customers. You can't control how other people feel about what your actions.

twoodfin7• 12 years ago

Sure it's possible, and of course legal. But it behooves your employers, employees and customers to remember that we live in a civil society, and banishing the heretics rather than gracefully tolerating and persuading them is poisonous for that society.

jackmaney• 12 years ago

The fact that they can come out and say this demonstrates that these employees, the people best able to assess this, don't believe that Eich will retaliate.

Or they're willing to risk speaking out, regardless.

Jormundir2• 12 years ago

I wouldn't call it a witch hunt. Now every Mozilla employee's work is contributing to Eich's paycheck. The paycheck with which he will (has) donate(d) to oppose gay marriage. If I was a Mozilla employee, this is not something I would want to be contributing to.

This argument can obviously be applied to any employee in the company, but it's severely exacerbated when it's applied to the CEO, who's getting a huge paycheck and is serving as the face of the company. It would be nice if we could separate his work from his personal life, but that separation does not actually exist. His personal endeavors are fueled by his professional life. (This is why we all work, really).

Mikeb855• 12 years ago

It definitely is a witch hunt. What next? Are you going to fire any employee that goes on vacation to Russia, Turkey, or gasp Cuba? Or anyone that contributes to a charity you don't agree with?

drone4• 12 years ago

"This argument can obviously be applied to any employee in the company, but it's severely exacerbated when it's applied to the CEO"

So, you're saying then, that they should go through the donations of every employee, ever, and fire anyone who donated to a cause that a sub-group of employees disagrees with?

DanBC3• 12 years ago

How much money (as a private citizen) has he spent on anti-gay causes?

How much money has he spent (as CEO) {i'm having trouble with wording here} keeping Mozilla a safe play for LGBTQ staff?

DerpDerpDerp6• 12 years ago

Do you support employees being fired for supporting gay marriage then?

I don't see any difference in the two positions (both are using their paychecks to advanced a political cause), except that you personally agree with one position and not the other.

smacktoward• 12 years ago

If you work for a private company, and look up the causes that your CEO contributes to, you might be surprised at what you find there, too.

I'm not saying Eich's contributions are irrelevant, just that he would hardly be the first CEO to hold political opinions many or all of the people who work with him find repugnant.

it's severely exacerbated when it's applied to the CEO, who's getting a huge paycheck

I haven't looked at their financials, but I would have to assume that CEO of Mozilla is one of the less lavishly paid "CEO of a major tech organization" jobs. Nobody goes to work at Mozilla to get rich.

bhitov• 12 years ago

That Mozilla is and remains a place where any employee can express their views on political issues, even if they know they're contrary to the CEO's. And that destroys any argument for Eich's role as CEO creating a conflict with Mozilla's ability to welcome LGBTQ employees and community members.

Not that I necessarily think having Eich as CEO would make Mozilla unable to welcome LGBTQ employees, but this argument is absurd. It is not at all difficult to imagine a rule set that permits free speech while still discriminating against LGBTQ employees in some other way.

kylerush• 12 years ago

I actually consider it worse for an individual to have contributed to the marginalization of a group (in this case financially) of American citizens than to just have a documented instance of disparaging comments towards the group. In the former the individual is actively involved in marginalizing the group whereas with the latter the individual is stating an opinion. Your opinion matters, but what you do with your opinion matters even more.

wonderzombie5• 12 years ago

He expressed his views publicly. They are subject to public criticism. It's absurd to characterize any form of criticism, especially something relatively mild as this, as a witch-hunt.

Anti-gay bigotry is socially unacceptable. Honestly anyone who thought about it at length ought to have realized we were heading in this direction. And the bar for denying an entire category of people's rights out to be relatively high, personal religious beliefs or not.

He might not have personally expressed bigotry, sure. But putting up $1K to a cause is almost worse, given that it's one of the more efficacious ways to support a cause. That cause happened to be in favor of denying civil rights.

burntroots3• 12 years ago

Try to see this from another angle. It's 1970 and you've donated to an organization that advocates equal rights to blacks. As a consequence, when you rise through the ranks at your company and have the opportunity to be considered for CEO, your board of directors rejects you on the basis of that contribution.

What you're saying is it's ok to deprive a man of his livelihood based on the current state of public opinion, which shifts by the decade. Tell me you see how wrong that is.

josephlord2• 12 years ago

Mozilla, much more than most is a political organisation (about freedom and openness) not just a commercial one. It has a mission, it will succeed with community support and goodwill. The political views of the CEO matter.

People are not saying (as far as I have heard) that there should be no place at Mozilla for Brendan Eich due to his political views but they are clearly uncomfortable with him leading a political organisation. A commitment and career somewhere does not entitle you to be CEO of the organisation if that is not what is best for the organisation.

Mikeb855• 12 years ago

Mozilla, much more than most is a political organisation (about freedom and openness) not just a commercial one.

What about the freedom to have personal beliefs, and do what you want with your own money and time?

If anything the people criticizing Brendan Eich are trying to take away his freedom...

MBlume• 12 years ago

The fact that they can come out and say this demonstrates that these employees, the people best able to assess this, don't believe that Eich will retaliate. That Mozilla is and remains a place where any employee can express their views on political issues, even if they know they're contrary to the CEO's. And that destroys any argument for Eich's role as CEO creating a conflict with Mozilla's ability to welcome LGBTQ employees and community members.

Or these employees have consciously chosen that they'd rather the knife come, if it's going to come, sooner than later.

hkphooey10• 12 years ago

Or maybe these employees have cynically protected themselves from layoffs... because they could claim the CEO targeted them due to a difference in opinion!

wpietri19• 12 years ago

Definitely. Or that it's better to stand together than to fall separately. Or that during this moment of transition they're mostly likely to win out. Or that they want to be on record so that if something does happen, they'll have better material for a press push or a lawsuit. Or that they figure they might as well give fixing things a try before they leave Mozilla. Or a bunch of other things.

The notion that them speaking out now proves that they have nothing to worry about is ridiculous. If nobody had spoken out, that would also have been used as proof that everything is fine.

freyrs34• 12 years ago

Exactly right, until he demonstrates an inability to bracket his personal affairs from his professional life (which he hasn't done) we as a enlightened pluralistic society should assume good faith and accept that he rose to this position based on his merit and contributions to the company and is probably a great candidate for the position.

bowlofpetunias• 12 years ago

There is a documented instance of him supporting treating gay people, including Mozilla employees, as second class humans.

You expect employees to keep working for a CEO who doesn't consider them equal human beings?

Why do people keep pretending this is a valid political view? This is about vicious hatred, and if he can keep that under control I admire his discipline, but no employee should have to work under that threat.

slantyyz5• 12 years ago

> You expect employees to keep working for a CEO who doesn't consider them equal human beings?

Not to be cheeky, but in my experience, many CEOs don't consider their workers to be equal beings (and I find this to be more true with very large organizations), and it has less to do with demographics/politics/religion than it does with the status that comes with the position of power.

--edited a word for clarity

FireBeyond• 12 years ago

"when there is no documented instance of him ever disparaging or otherwise harming LGBTQ employees or community members."

Other than financially supporting and lobbying for the passage of Proposition 8, you mean?

david9273• 12 years ago

It's his personal view. What does freedom mean if it's only about views that everyone likes?

ivanca3• 12 years ago

How far does it go? Would you say the same about a nazi or KKK member?

devrelm• 12 years ago

Godwin's Law in 16 minutes. Not bad.

angersock4• 12 years ago

The Chicago police protected neo-nazis when they marched in Skokie--at a time when there were residents there who still had tattoos from the camps.

So, yeah, we should strive to protect freedom of speech and be tolerant, even when people are shitbags.

ojii• 12 years ago

In my opinion, appointing someone as CEO can not be base purely on professional performance. The CEO position is too public to ignore personal actions. Eich is of course allowed to have his own opinion on issues, such as gay marriage. But now being CEO of Mozilla, Mozilla has to ask themselves if his personal views are in line with the views/mission of Mozilla as a company.

The freedom to have your own opinion on things does not protect you from the consequences of those opinions.

slantyyz5• 12 years ago

> The freedom to have your own opinion on things does not protect you from the consequences of those opinions.

Yes. In the same vein, people publicly calling out their employers in social media (even when justified) should also realize that it's a potentially career limiting move.

I'm pretty sure there's a significant number of companies and HR managers who would be reluctant to hire people who have engaged in this type of communication in the past.

koenigdavidmj• 12 years ago

Because the line about private activities staying private doesn't apply to conservatives for some reason.

freehunter7• 12 years ago

His personal view is that a subset of humans do not deserve equal rights afforded to everyone else. It's not that he votes for a different party, that's not a problem. It's that he actively wants to deny rights to certain people, some of whom are under his employ.

I wouldn't want a member of the KKK running my organization either, and I would imagine most minorities would speak out about that as well. Racist or anti-gay, a bigot is a bigot. This isn't about politics or personal views. It's about denying human beings their deserved civil liberties for no good reason at all. Would you want to work for someone who hates you enough to force a law to break apart your family?

david9273• 12 years ago

If you deny him his job for this act, donating money to a legitimate political campaign, you're denying him his rights. He has the right to his opinion and to voice that opinion.

hapless3• 12 years ago

After a public figure speaks in public about those views, they become much less "personal."

badman_ting4• 12 years ago

Yeah, and the employee's view is that he's not fit for CEO. I'm sick of this line of thought that he can have his views but nobody else can. Especially because if it were a different issue than gay marriage nobody would be saying that.

wpietri19• 12 years ago

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. He is free to express his opinions of gay people. They are free to express their opinions of him. See how that works? Everybody's free to say their piece.

Of course, the problem here isn't his view, which nobody actually knows. It's that he helped strip a civil right from a bunch of people, including some of those he will now be in charge of.

slantyyz5• 12 years ago

> He is free to express his opinions of gay people.

Context matters though. If you make these opinions at the workplace and someone feels threatened, discriminated against or harassed, there are legal repercussions.

And I assume this goes both ways. If you have an unpopular view that is expressed outside the workplace but are harassed by your coworkers, there is a risk of legal repercussions on those coworkers too.

chrismcb• 12 years ago

How can "@mozilla stands for openness" if you restrict who can run the company?

cdmckay2• 12 years ago

So you'd be ok if he was a racist? Brendan is entitled to express his views, but it doesn't mean they come without consequences.

twoodfin7• 12 years ago

By that logic, I'm sure no one working at Mozilla voted for Barack Obama in 2008 when he publicly held a position you now consider in the same ethical category as that a "racist" would hold.

This is not so far removed from saying Mary Jones shouldn't be CEO of Mozilla because she donated to a campaign against CO2 emission restrictions: Again by analogy with a settled political issue, "She's denying Global Warming. You'd be OK if she denied the Holocaust?"

thescribe• 12 years ago

If open source is about ideological purity tests than no one can contribute.

badman_ting4• 12 years ago

Do you really think this way?

simias2• 12 years ago

I haven't followed that particular drama, are they asking him to step down solely because of his anti-gay activism? Or are there other reasons as well?

Assuming it's the former and as long as he's not pushing his agenda through Mozilla (discriminating against gay employees or whatnot) I'm not sure it's a good reason to "fire" a CEO.

TD-Linux• 12 years ago

As far as I can tell, this is about the $1000 donation in 2008.

phpnode• 12 years ago

Does making a one time donation to a political organisation really constitute "anti gay activism"?

freehunter7• 12 years ago

When the political organization in question exists solely to promote anti-gay laws, then yes. Yes it does.

mikestew• 12 years ago

Just the CEO? Who else shall we burn at the stake? Mary, the office manager, goes to church every Sunday. How did she vote? John over in mobile dev is a devout Muslim, I'll bet he doesn't take kindly to such things as gay marriage. Time to start scanning through those campaign contribution records for Prop 8 and seeing if a JOIN on the employee database gives us any results.

I've always held to the idea that my job is to make my manager look good. I don't know that mouthing off on twitter such that Ars Technica picks it up is fitting to that philosophy.

intortus4• 12 years ago

There's a huge difference between holding general religious beliefs and contributing financially to a political movement specifically pursuing institutional discrimination of a large class of Americans.

I'm a little troubled by the chilling effects that career and public opinion can have on political expression, but it's hard to generate sympathy for blatantly unconstitutional, horrendously discriminatory forms of political expression.

freyrs34• 12 years ago

Philosophically what's the difference between financially supporting a political cause and voting for leaders which support that cause?

drone4• 12 years ago

The Catholic Church works very hard to supress gay marriage everywhere in the world, and has done a lot more harm to our society than Prop 8 ever would have. The Catholic Church is supported by tithes from their members, which are generally required.

By this same logic, should they not be arguing for the firing of every Catholic employee, who ostensibly spend 10% of their income received from the company to the same end?

DerpDerpDerp6• 12 years ago

You're wrong on two points:

a) Contributing financially to many religious institutions is explicitly financing groups who opposed gay marriage, and is an activity than many religious people undertake.

b) Advocating for something that in some views is unconstitutional is a constitutionally protected activity. The practice itself may be unconstitutional (I certainly think so), however, the political advocacy itself is not.

NeonVice• 12 years ago

Government benefits should only be tied to civil unions. The government should get the hell out of marriage and couples can determine if they want to consider themselves married.

I would never say that changing the definition of marriage is blatantly unconstitutional. The constitution says nothing about the right of two people of the same sex getting married nor does it say anything about traditional marriage. You could argue equal protection under the law, but as it stands a heterosexual man and a homosexual are both legally not permitted to marry a man. Blatantly is absolutely the wrong word to use.

Also, your insinuation that religious people should not use their deeply held beliefs to influence the societies in which they live is disturbing. You have a vote and they have a vote.

notdonspaulding3• 12 years ago

There's a huge difference between holding general religious beliefs and contributing financially...

So, you can believe whatever you want, as long as you don't act on your beliefs?

... to a political movement specifically pursuing institutional discrimination of a large class of Americans.

Prop 8 was proposed by the voters of California, it would not have had direct ramifications on the rest of the US.

... blatantly unconstitutional...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-...

The last big ruling by the SCOTUS on gay marriage came down to a 5-4 vote. The supreme court justices are not amateurs at enforcing the US Constitution. That it was 5-4 is a good sign that the issue is hard to argue one way or the other from the constitution.

EDIT: typo

Mikeb855• 12 years ago

Thank you for posting this.

It's insane that there's this witch-hunt over someone's personal views, and the fact that this outlandish behaviour is actually supported and applauded by people.

If anything this just gives more credence to the 'gay agenda' conspiracies that up until fairly recently no one took seriously...

m0a0t011• 12 years ago

Because equal marriage is really, really important. When gay people are not accepted in society opposing something that would improve that greatly is a bad thing to do

rjknight2• 12 years ago

No, it really doesn't.

There are sensible people on this thread trying to argue that Brendan Eich shouldn't be forced to resign because of his private political views, and there are idiots like you using words like 'witch-hunt' and talking about the 'gay agenda' (what, you think they have a committee somewhere drawing up a hit-list?). I sincerely doubt that you are trying constructively to help here.

hkphooey10• 12 years ago

Silly you for thinking there was an agenda.

In the UK, the Labour (political party) Gay Rights Manifesto of 1985 said,

"A socialist society would supersede the family household... Gay people and children should have the right to live together... It follows from what we have already said that we favour the abolition of the age of consent."

hkphooey10• 12 years ago

Yes, Mary the office manager, she claims to be a Christian but I've always suspected her of being a witch. Burn her! Drown her! Do both!

But whatever you do, don't go near John, because I hear he gets upset over cartoons and he might react violently rather than meekly accepting punishment like a good Christian.

If you're sick of the political correctness and need a good laugh, watch this short piece by British aethist comedian Pat Condell, 'How gay is Islam?'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLbltj-tD1Y

m0a0t011• 12 years ago

Why is it that for some people political correctness - something which tries to make people respect one another more and be nice - is the devil.

You have the right to say almost whatever you want. That doesn't mean you fucking should, does it? There's a big difference between the two

simonster2• 12 years ago

Mary and John aren't the CEO. There was disappointment over Brendan Eich's position on gay marriage when he was CTO, but I don't think anyone was calling for him to resign, and even now I'm not sure anyone is calling for Eich to leave Mozilla. CEO is the ultimate leadership role, and if you are gay or have gay friends, having someone in that role who does not believe in gay marriage hurts.

npizzolato3• 12 years ago

The comparison between the CEO (and therefore the public face) of a non-profit organization and Mary the office manager is so absurd it's ridiculous. When your actions impact more people, you get put under a harsher spotlight. I'm not sure why that's a difficult concept to grasp.

dpeck• 12 years ago

"McAvoy added that he feels fortunate to work at a company >like Mozilla, 'where I can say that without fear of >retribution.'"

May only be true because of how many eyes are on this. Regardless on how enlightened a company is I don't think you'll have a good time of things for very long if you're calling out your boss to quit his job.

rjknight2• 12 years ago

Should I be able to quit my job if I don't like my boss's politics? Yes (though your boss should never be able to force you to quit, and should never be able to use their position and authority to make you feel that you have no choice).

Should I be able to ask my boss to quit if I don't like his politics? Yes (though you should not expect him to agree to this).

Is it a good thing for the world in general if people are asked to quit their jobs because of their politics? My instinctive reaction is that it isn't a good idea, because we can't know what political views will be popular or unpopular in the future (in other words, it could be your opinions that make you the object of some campaign in the future). I can't defend Eich's opinions, but the principle that "you are not your job" and that what you do outside of the job should remain outside is something that should protect everyone and I'd require some pretty strong arguments to convince me otherwise.

We should remember, however, that plenty of people don't have Eich's profile or history of positive contributions (he was contributing to what became Mozilla before Mozilla even existed). Political firings do happen, and people do get fired for stuff that they might reasonably expect should be part of their private sphere, and only sometimes does this result in a court case or compensation being paid. Anyone who defends Eich's right to his political views should remember that, the next time a colleague or acquaintance is on the wrong side of an inappropriate dismissal.

edit: typos

badman_ting4• 12 years ago

Huh. Wasn't exactly expecting that.

cmhamill2• 12 years ago

Some very strange reactions in this thread. The idea that this somehow validates the notion that Eich's politics don't affect Mozilla as a workplace seems particularly bizarre, to me.

My read on this is that there are employees at Mozilla who feel strongly enough about this to speak publicly, and the most likely reason is because they believe that Eich as CEO will affect their workplace.

bentruyman2• 12 years ago

He's been CTO since 2005. Now his views will suddenly begin to "affect their workplace"?

wpietri19• 12 years ago

CTO is a technical role. CEO is boss of everybody, and organizational figurehead. So yeah, it's very different.

cmhamill2• 12 years ago

I asserted nothing of the sort.

AnimalMuppet• 12 years ago

Those who demand tolerance for themselves should also extend it to others...

vixen99• 12 years ago

Intolerant! As someone put it, toleration is not toleration unless you put up with that with which you will not put.

brandon2722• 12 years ago

I have a huge level of mental conflict on this issue!

I am a supporter of equal rights and gay marriage. When I see comparisons made to other civil rights issues (i.e. "Would we accept this guy as CEO if he thought interracial marriage was wrong?" or "Would we accept this guy as CEO if he thought women deserved less pay?") it seems like a no brainer to me that, no, a person who held those views would never be tolerated as a CEO. And gay marriage, gay rights are an important issue and should be held in the same regard. Using that logic, one could conclude he is not CEO material. Not to mention that as a representative of the company they are getting some unpleasant press over this, nor does he seem to have the confidence of his employees that a leader should have.

On the other hand, it seems distasteful to me that we say to people, "We don't like your views. You need to go away now." ... Shouldn't diversity of thought, diversity of social and cultural and religious views be considered a good thing in an organization? Shouldn't we be trying to build teams of people with whom we aren't always going to agree on things with?

joyeuse67012• 12 years ago

What you hate in yourself you hate in others, and it really shows with this.

peterwwillis3• 12 years ago

This is exactly the same as asking a person to resign because they're gay. Personal politics do not belong in the workplace, and shame on anyone who would take away someone's position because of who they are or what they support in their private life.

BadassFractal• 12 years ago

For those of you defending Eich, what if he monetarily supported white supermacy instead? Would you still feel comfortable about his position?

freyrs34• 12 years ago

In my personal life no I would find it reprehensible, but in my professional life that would depend. If an employee wants to go burn crosses on the weekend with the KKK but comes into work every Monday, and keeps his personal life separate and still continues generate revenue for the company then that's their business and not my concern.

j2d3• 12 years ago

CEO is inherently a political role - a CEO is the face of the company. If the CEOs political views are at odds with most of the employees of the company as well as the company's product's userbase, it's hardly surprising that there would be a movement to get him out. He's the face of the company. If that face is ugly / mean, then he's probably the wrong choice for CEO.

ericcumbee• 12 years ago

When you consider how quickly opinions have shifted on this issue. Prop 8 was relatively a long time ago.

DanBC3• 12 years ago

He was asked in 2012(?) if he still held those views. He declined to answer.

suprgeek• 12 years ago

This is in a perverse way a Great test for Mozilla's stated commitment to inclusiveness. Will they buckle under this pressure to have one of their Employees (CEO) leave because of a Personal Stated opinion, (Barring any evidence to the contrary) solely because of persecution for those views?

Watching this with great interest - how will it play out? Will Brendan Succumb to the pressure and quit to avoid this issue becoming a distraction?

Will he ride it out? Provide clear guidance that it was a personal issue and emphasize personally that this does not reflect Mozilla policy? Something else..?

rootedbox• 12 years ago

If Eich had given 1000 bucks to stopping the abilities of lets say hispanics to marry. He would have never been allowed to be CEO; because we do not accept that type of bigotry. Sadly however bigotry against LGBTQ is still allowed.

For me it is clear and simple. He can not say he will be inclusive if he at a low level doesn't believe in it. In his blog post he only apologized he hurt anyone.. not that his views are outdated, and has changed his mind on the topic.

spikels• 12 years ago

This is a bad idea. Your personal views - religious, political, whatever - should have nothing to do with your job as long as you don't bring them to work. If it is acceptable to demote or fire someone because of their political views or activity outside of work, we are opening a huge can of worms. I hope everyone can understand this.

wpietri19• 12 years ago

In general I agree with your theory. But I think it's different when you want to be the figurehead and ultimate authority over thousands of people. Especially you've helped to strip civil rights from some of those people.

marcuschristie• 12 years ago

Is it legal for Mozilla to fire Eich because of his political affiliations? Is it legal to ask a prospective CEO hire his or her political views? What I found from a quick search indicates that it isn't legal. [1] I can kind of understand how a member of the LGBT community could be disappointed by Eich's promotion, but I don't understand what they think Mozilla could have legally done differently.

[1] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employment...

igreulich• 12 years ago

I wonder how history would have remembered Eich if he never got CEO.

The thought has not fully crystallized, and possibly not quite the same, but Nikola Tesla was a Eugenisist. But we LOVE him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#Societal_views

voidr• 12 years ago

So the LGBTQ community wants to dictate that the Mozilla CEO be a gay marriage supporter. They also seem to have trouble separating software from politics.

Mozilla employees tell Brendan Eich he needs to “step down”

Related Stories