bit-tech.net

Mozilla's new CEO causes a stir

Mozilla's new CEO causes a stir

Mozilla's Brendan Eich has been appointed chief executive, but his support for anti-gay-marriage Proposition 8 has led to at least one developer boycotting the non-profit organisation.

The not-for-profit Mozilla Foundation, the group behind the development of open-source applications including the Firefox browser and its new HTML5-powered Firefox OS offshoot, has a new chief executive officer - and his appointment has ruffled a few feathers.

The Foundation announced late last night that chief technology officer Brendan Eich, a co-founder of the Mozilla Foundation, is to immediately take on the role of chief executive at the foundation's wholly-owned business-oriented subsidiary the Mozilla Corporation. The news comes amid a number of executive-level shake-ups, including the appointment of Li Gong as chief operating officer with a newly expanded reporting group. Jay Sullivan, the Foundation's acting CEO up to this point, is to leave the Foundation altogether 'to pursue new opportunities.'

'I would first like to thank Jay Sullivan for his contributions to Mozilla and to the Web. He has been a passionate force at Mozilla whose leadership, especially during the last year, has been important to our success, in particular with Firefox OS,' Eich claimed upon taking on the mantle of CEO. 'I am honoured to have the role of leading Mozilla, as we look forward to our audacious goals across all of our products and the project as a whole.'

Although Eich has the support of the board, for some the appointment doesn't sit well thanks to Eich's political beliefs. Eich is reported to have donated $1,000 in support of the US Proposition 8, a proposed law which would have banned gay marriage outright. Although a droplet in the overall finances of the battle - the LA Times, in documenting Eich's donation, shows $39 million having been donated overall in support of the ban compared to $44.1 million donated against - it's enough for those who would have been severely affected by the ban to question his suitability for the leading role at a supposedly inclusive and meritocratic open source institution.

Rarebit, a start-up company founded by a married gay couple who had protested against Proposition 8, has become the first to announce a formal boycott of Mozilla under Eich's rule. 'Effective today, we’re removing Color Puzzle from the Firefox Marketplace and stopping work on all of our Firefox-related applications, notably the about-to-launch Firefox version of the popular Dictionary! app for iPhone and Android,' chief executive Hampton Catlin explained. 'We will continue our boycott until Brendan Eich is completely removed from any day to day activities at Mozilla, which we believe is extremely unlikely after all he’s survived and the continued support he has received from Mozilla.'

Neither Eich nor Mozilla have commented on Rarebit's boycott, nor on Eich's personal donation to the pro-Proposition 8 cause.

43 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
SuicideNeil 25th March 2014, 13:29 Quote
HoMo(phobe)zilla.
Woodspoon 25th March 2014, 14:36 Quote
While I don't in anyway support his view, it's his view, as long as it stays only in his personal, private life and does not affect in any aspect how Mozilla is run then it shouldn't be an issue.
Everybody's entitled to their own private beliefs as long as they don't affect those around you.
PaulC2K 25th March 2014, 15:02 Quote
Well thats $80m well spent isnt it.
Sure, the Donald Trumps of this world will have put in the majority of that on each side, but $80m!?!
What is the world coming to where a country like the US, bombing countries in the name of freedom, needs $40m to deny their own citizens a freedom, and another $40m to put them straight.

Thank goodness we've solved world hunger and everything else.
$80m!!

Did someone mention Mozilla?
schmidtbag 25th March 2014, 15:21 Quote
I don't understand how $40m is, by any means, worth spending on something that shouldn't affect him personally. Why does it matter to him if gays get married? If he's religious and hates it, does he honestly think what he's doing is going to score himself some points with god? I'm pretty sure god doesn't like blind hate and bribery. Maybe he lives in an area where a lot of gays reside. But with that kind of money, he could simply live somewhere else, or, pay the gays to leave. Maybe hire the westboro baptist church to come to his town (where at least he'd get the negative publicity he deserves).
Gareth Halfacree 25th March 2014, 15:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
I don't understand how $40m is, by any means, worth spending on something that shouldn't affect him personally. Why does it matter to him if gays get married? If he's religious and hates it, does he honestly think what he's doing is going to score himself some points with god? I'm pretty sure god doesn't like blind hate and bribery. Maybe he lives in an area where a lot of gays reside. But with that kind of money, he could simply live somewhere else, or, pay the gays to leave. Maybe hire the westboro baptist church to come to his town (where at least he'd get the negative publicity he deserves).
Not sure you read that paragraph thoroughly, chap: he donated $1,000 of an overall ~$40 million fund - he didn't personally donate the whole $40 million.
richiehatchet 25th March 2014, 15:55 Quote
"Everybody's entitled to their own private beliefs as long as they don't affect those around you."

I somewhat agree but donating to a a proposal is directly trying to affect those around you!
TheMadDutchDude 25th March 2014, 15:56 Quote
A large majority of the US citizens are against gay rights as they are very religious people. They see it as "wrong doing" as it isn't how God intended things to be. These are usually of the older generation and the younger generations are seeing it as if it were normal. It will eventually die out, but there will always, like anywhere in the world, be people against certain rights that we as humans should automatically have.

People with financial power will always try to block things if they can, just like those will try to get it approved.
bawjaws 25th March 2014, 16:15 Quote
According to the LA Times:

Total donations from Mozilla employees in support of Proposition 8: $1,000 (1 donation)
Total donations from Mozilla employees in opposition to Proposition 8: $1,350 (3 donations)

So does that mean that Mozilla are a net opposer of Prop 8? In which case, aren't they the good guys?
hyperion 25th March 2014, 16:26 Quote
What the hell, Brendan. We already had this debate last week. Sort your timing, man.
Woodspoon 25th March 2014, 18:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by richiehatchet
"Everybody's entitled to their own private beliefs as long as they don't affect those around you."

I somewhat agree but donating to a a proposal is directly trying to affect those around you!
Yes thats a good point , but then that could be said about any group that is donated.

But I actually really meant it more in connection with the business, essentially: he can think what he likes in the privacy of his own home just as long as he doesn't try to push his views into the business, was what I was going for, lol
somidiot 25th March 2014, 20:11 Quote
Wait, They guy may have an opinion opposite to the LGBT community and the first thing they do is ban hammer the company he works for? Should those that have an opposing view boycott Rarebit?
schmidtbag 25th March 2014, 20:56 Quote
@Gareth
Sorry my bad - I was kind of in a rush so I did skim through it quickly. I have a tendency to do that a lot, if you haven't noticed. But even then, $1000 is a lot for something so stupid to spend money on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMadDutchDude
A large majority of the US citizens are against gay rights as they are very religious people. They see it as "wrong doing" as it isn't how God intended things to be. These are usually of the older generation and the younger generations are seeing it as if it were normal. It will eventually die out, but there will always, like anywhere in the world, be people against certain rights that we as humans should automatically have.

People with financial power will always try to block things if they can, just like those will try to get it approved.

This is why I personally hate living in this country - it's culturally too diverse to summarize into 1. I live in the north east and it angers me to no end that I'm associated with the deep south and California. All of the negative stereotypes of the country fall in those 2 areas. The north east has the last amount of "problems".
jimmyjj 25th March 2014, 21:49 Quote
Well I guess he has the right to his personal beliefs.

Fortunately I have the right to boycott a company run by a bigot.
leslie 25th March 2014, 21:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMadDutchDude
A large majority of the US citizens are against gay rights as they are very religious people.
Actually, the country has turned the other direction, the majority now supports gay rights and gay marriage, at least to some extent. It's not a massive margin, but a majority none the less.

It's a movement with enough momentum that religious leaders have gone so far as to admit defeat. It hasn't stopped them from continuing to push back, but they know it's a lost cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by somidiot
Wait, They guy may have an opinion opposite to the LGBT community and the first thing they do is ban hammer the company he works for? Should those that have an opposing view boycott Rarebit?
He didn't just have an opposite opinion, an opinion is saying you dislike something.
This guy publicly spent money to oppress people, and yes, it is oppression. Prop 8 wasn't to allow gay marriage, it was to take away their right to civil unions.

Opposing views are fine, just don't try to oppress people regarding matters that don't actually matter to you. I don't like broccoli, does that give me the right to tell others they can't eat broccoli? If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married, and if you want to eat broccoli, eat broccoli. It doesn't effect me if two men or two women marry, or if the person next to me eats broccoli.
fix-the-spade 26th March 2014, 01:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodspoon
While I don't in anyway support his view, it's his view, as long as it stays only in his personal, private life and does not affect in any aspect how Mozilla is run then it shouldn't be an issue.
Everybody's entitled to their own private beliefs as long as they don't affect those around you.

But reality doesn't work like that, personally held beliefs affect everything a person does in their daily life, regardless of how much they insist otherwise.
.
In this case he's openly taken steps to deny rights to others, Mozilla have supported him (and by implication his view) by putting him in charge. Fair enough, it's a free country, but now that everyone knows where he stands people are just as free to move and speak against him for his beliefs as he was to move against other people, just as they are free to move and speak against Mozilla for their apparent support.
.
Such is life
lysaer 26th March 2014, 02:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fix-the-spade
But reality doesn't work like that, personally held beliefs affect everything a person does in their daily life, regardless of how much they insist otherwise.
.
In this case he's openly taken steps to deny rights to others, Mozilla have supported him (and by implication his view) by putting him in charge. Fair enough, it's a free country, but now that everyone knows where he stands people are just as free to move and speak against him for his beliefs as he was to move against other people, just as they are free to move and speak against Mozilla for their apparent support.
.
Such is life

But then just to play Devils advocate, aren't you trying to deny him his right to support his views, I mean it's an endless circle and at the end of the day someone and someone's rights have to be oppressed.

If a person owns a business and chooses not to employ gays, blacks etc because those are his personal beliefs then do we have the right or does the government have the right to force our beliefs on him and say he must hire the aforementioned minorities?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
schmidtbag 26th March 2014, 02:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
But then just to play Devils advocate, aren't you trying to deny him his right to support his views, I mean it's an endless circle and at the end of the day someone and someone's rights have to be oppressed.

If a person owns a business and chooses not to employ gays, blacks etc because those are his personal beliefs then do we have the right or does the government have the right to force our beliefs on him and say he must hire the aforementioned minorities?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

I understand what you mean, but it's not a matter of opinion anymore once you start paying/bribing someone into enforcing your beliefs upon others. If you want to be a bigot, fine, nobody else has the right to stop you. If you want to try to convince people to listen to you, I don't approve but go ahead. But once you start meddling with other people's lives, that's where the problem arises.
Gareth Halfacree 26th March 2014, 08:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
If a person owns a business and chooses not to employ gays, blacks etc because those are his personal beliefs then do we have the right or does the government have the right to force our beliefs on him and say he must hire the aforementioned minorities?
As you're from the UK, then yes; refusing employment to someone based on sexual orientation, gender, or skin colour is discrimination and therefore illegal. See also: refusing service to people. S'a classic legal loophole that a racist bartender can refuse service to a black man, so long as he doesn't say it's because he's black; as soon as he says "I'm not serving you because you're black," that's discrimination and illegal.

There are limited exemptions for religious beliefs and the like, but basically yeah: 'we' have the right, enshrined in law, to force companies to stop being dicks about employing people with different belief systems, sexual orientations, skin colours and/or genders.
Bede 26th March 2014, 09:15 Quote
Yeesh, who gives a ****? People think this is the first time someone with controversial views has run a company? No one tried to start a boycott of Apple after Jobs stopped all the CSR programs.

The militant gay tendency is strong and organized (see Sochi for a recent example) but ultimately does itself more harm than good. What this fuss boils down to is "this man holds views we dislike therefore he shouldn't have a job". It should all blow over as long as Mozilla's leadership can hold their nerve.
lysaer 26th March 2014, 21:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
I understand what you mean, but it's not a matter of opinion anymore once you start paying/bribing someone into enforcing your beliefs upon others. If you want to be a bigot, fine, nobody else has the right to stop you. If you want to try to convince people to listen to you, I don't approve but go ahead. But once you start meddling with other people's lives, that's where the problem arises.

But then playing Devils advocate again, is it not the same in a roll reversal situation where one person is contributing to another kind of belief system that affects you and your beliefs, it's a circular situation at the end of the day and it doesn't matter which side of the spectrum you are on, one persons belief system had be oppressed in order for another's
to supercede



Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
As you're from the UK, then yes; refusing employment to someone based on sexual orientation, gender, or skin colour is discrimination and therefore illegal. See also: refusing service to people. S'a classic legal loophole that a racist bartender can refuse service to a black man, so long as he doesn't say it's because he's black; as soon as he says "I'm not serving you because you're black," that's discrimination and illegal.

There are limited exemptions for religious beliefs and the like, but basically yeah: 'we' have the right, enshrined in law, to force companies to stop being dicks about employing people with different belief systems, sexual orientations, skin colours and/or genders.

Yes but what I'm saying is, why are individuals not allowed to have the right to discriminate if it is part of their belief system? I am not saying in anyways they are right but I am questioning whether it is right to force our beliefs on them if they cannot force their beliefs on us.


If a company owner who is inherently homophobic or racist because of religion or just because of his own convictions, then when he refuses to employ someone based on that should we then persecute him for what he believes in, should he not be allowed the right to discriminate?

This is where freedom of expression and freedom of speech falls down, because in order to be allowed that freedom you must oppress someone elses.



Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Gareth Halfacree 26th March 2014, 21:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
Yes but what I'm saying is, why are individuals not allowed to have the right to discriminate if it is part of their belief system?
Because it directly infringes another's basic human rights. You can believe whatever you want to believe, and act on that belief accordingly - but when acting on said beliefs tramples on my human rights, that's when we have a problem. Don't want to let a gay guy in your house? Not a problem. You're a dick, but that's your issue. Don't want to give a gay guy a job, just because he's gay? We've got a problem, as discrimination legislation proves. Want to round up the gays and stick 'em in special camps? Yeah, then we've really got a problem, Hitler.

(Just in case it wasn't clear: the 'you' above isn't you-you, but a hypothetical second-person you - I'm not calling you a bigot and/or Hitler!)
lysaer 26th March 2014, 21:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Because it directly infringes another's basic human rights. You can believe whatever you want to believe, and act on that belief accordingly - but when acting on said beliefs tramples on my human rights, that's when we have a problem. Don't want to let a gay guy in your house? Not a problem. You're a dick, but that's your issue. Don't want to give a gay guy a job, just because he's gay? We've got a problem, as discrimination legislation proves. Want to round up the gays and stick 'em in special camps? Yeah, then we've really got a problem, Hitler.

(Just in case it wasn't clear: the 'you' above isn't you-you, but a hypothetical second-person you - I'm not calling you a bigot and/or Hitler!)

Lol I didn't think you were directing it at me man

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Bede 27th March 2014, 00:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Because it directly infringes another's basic human rights. You can believe whatever you want to believe, and act on that belief accordingly - but when acting on said beliefs tramples on my human rights, that's when we have a problem. Don't want to let a gay guy in your house? Not a problem. You're a dick, but that's your issue. Don't want to give a gay guy a job, just because he's gay? We've got a problem, as discrimination legislation proves. Want to round up the gays and stick 'em in special camps? Yeah, then we've really got a problem, Hitler.

(Just in case it wasn't clear: the 'you' above isn't you-you, but a hypothetical second-person you - I'm not calling you a bigot and/or Hitler!)

"Basic human rights" - what are these things? Don't fall into the trap of thinking that that which we consider self-evident now will be self-evident in 20 years time. The law is all there is, and that is in constant motion (albeit as slow as the changes to a sand dune).

Discrimination by way of sex, colour, orientation, intelligence, height, athletic ability, aesthetics, wealth, class happens all the time. Most of it isn't bad. Few complain that companies prefer to hire women for most customer-facing jobs (except when the 'reassuring' presence of a man is required). The police are allowed to have an openly discriminatory union (NBPA) whose basic job is to provide legal cover for black officers only. Golf clubs are allowed to have male-only membership. Gyms are allowed to have female-only membership. The various churches are allowed to exclude women from the traditional positions of authority. The fundamental authority in the UK, the monarchy, is a family enterprise. Convicted criminals will almost never get a private-sector salaried job after they are released. Playgrounds often don't let children older than 13 inside.

So when someone decides they don't want to let gays, whites, women, atheists, the young or any other demographic in the house/club/church/other private space, that's ok.

----

The simple way to look at it is this. Mozilla is appointing a militant atheist who gives money to organisations that seek to hinder the activities of the church. Would this media fuss still be happening?
schmidtbag 27th March 2014, 01:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
But then playing Devils advocate again, is it not the same in a roll reversal situation where one person is contributing to another kind of belief system that affects you and your beliefs, it's a circular situation at the end of the day and it doesn't matter which side of the spectrum you are on, one persons belief system had be oppressed in order for another's to supercede

That's not true at all - it should not be up to the government to decide PERSONAL matters. If gay marriage becomes legalized country-wide due to paying lobbyists, religions are still free to disagree, and they are allowed to ban such activities in their own communities/parishes, as long as they don't harm anyone. Abortion is another good example - the government has no right to tell you whether you're allowed to do that or not, but if your religion disagrees with it, then that's the set of rules you should be following. The entire country should not be penalized because of someone else's beliefs.
Gareth Halfacree 27th March 2014, 08:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
"Basic human rights" - what are these things?
Ta-da. Rights so universal that we have a special Europe-wide court exclusively to deal with 'em. Pay particular attention, please, to Article 14. (Which, I'll grant, doesn't apply to refusing someone employment, as employment isn't a protected right under the ECHR - I'm using it merely as an example of the definition of discrimination.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
Discrimination by way of sex, colour, orientation, intelligence, height, athletic ability, aesthetics, wealth, class happens all the time. Most of it isn't bad. Few complain that companies prefer to hire women for most customer-facing jobs (except when the 'reassuring' presence of a man is required). The police are allowed to have an openly discriminatory union (NBPA) whose basic job is to provide legal cover for black officers only. Golf clubs are allowed to have male-only membership. Gyms are allowed to have female-only membership. The various churches are allowed to exclude women from the traditional positions of authority. The fundamental authority in the UK, the monarchy, is a family enterprise. Convicted criminals will almost never get a private-sector salaried job after they are released. Playgrounds often don't let children older than 13 inside. So when someone decides they don't want to let gays, whites, women, atheists, the young or any other demographic in the house/club/church/other private space, that's ok.
You're conflating a whole range of issues, there. If you read back up-thread, you'll see that I point out there are limited exemptions from discrimination legislation for, among other things, religious beliefs. These are, however, exactly that: limited. Fun fact: notoriously pink-hued insurance specialist Shiela's Wheels heavily slants its advertising towards women, suggesting that they can save money because they're safer drivers than men; the company is forced, however, to insure both men and women. It used to do so using two different balance books: women using the service would get one rate, and men using the service in spite of its advertising would get a higher rate. In December 2012, the European Court of Justice ruled this was discriminatory, and forced the company to insure both men and women at the same rate. Here's Shiela's Wheels' statement on the ruling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
The simple way to look at it is this. Mozilla is appointing a militant atheist who gives money to organisations that seek to hinder the activities of the church. Would this media fuss still be happening?
Given that would almost certain result in the same outcry and calls for boycott as the appointment of an anti-gay-marriage campaigner, yes - only it'd be religious developers calling for his ouster.
Bede 27th March 2014, 10:12 Quote
You are naive in the extreme if you think that. I also don't remotely understand the logic behind your acceptance of the ECJ's insistence that Sheila's Wheels treat women as though they were more risky than they are, and men as less risky than they are. It's head in the sand stuff.
Gareth Halfacree 27th March 2014, 10:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
You are naive in the extreme if you think that.
Don't think I've ever been accused of being naive before! Just out of interest, which statement of mine makes you think that? You haven't quoted anything for context...
impar 27th March 2014, 10:28 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Ta-da. Rights so universal that we have a special Europe-wide court exclusively to deal with 'em.
Isnt that the court UK have problems with?
Gareth Halfacree 27th March 2014, 10:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Isnt that the court UK have problems with?
In as much as I'm representative of the UK as a whole, no. I think it's great.
RedFlames 3rd April 2014, 21:09 Quote
Nexxo 3rd April 2014, 21:15 Quote
Sucks when someone imposes their personal opinion on your life, eh, Eich? :p
Sloth 3rd April 2014, 22:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
What this fuss boils down to is "this man holds views we dislike therefore he shouldn't have a job". It should all blow over as long as Mozilla's leadership can hold their nerve.
This thought bothers me even more now that he has been forced to resign. Eich never mentioned his personal beliefs or stated that they would impact his role as CEO. What if his donation was not publicly known? Clearly he's not such a raving homophobic nutjob as to have been noticed by those who chose him as the best candidate for the position. Hard not to see it as "we don't like what you believe, there's the door".

And he's only responsible for $1,000 of the $39 million. I'd be double checking my contract if my name was on that list with him.
Yadda 3rd April 2014, 22:43 Quote
Edit: Hmm. On second thoughts - death to the anti-gayerz! :)
Jim 3rd April 2014, 22:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
This thought bothers me even more now that he has been forced to resign. Eich never mentioned his personal beliefs or stated that they would impact his role as CEO. What if his donation was not publicly known? Clearly he's not such a raving homophobic nutjob as to have been noticed by those who chose him as the best candidate for the position. Hard not to see it as "we don't like what you believe, there's the door".

And he's only responsible for $1,000 of the $39 million. I'd be double checking my contract if my name was on that list with him.

Thing is, if it's negatively affecting the company, then they've already failed their no. 1 job as CEO. I'm inclined to agree with the argument that there should be a line between personal beliefs and your career, provided they don't affect each other, but when it becomes such a big issue the company has little choice.
Nexxo 3rd April 2014, 23:18 Quote
But Eich did not keep it to his personal beliefs, did he? He donated money to a political lobby with the express purpose of imposing those beliefs on others. Now he knows what it feels like to have his life ambitions thwarted by other people's personal beliefs.
Jim 3rd April 2014, 23:35 Quote
Point is, he didn't make that donation in the name of the company. It was in a private capacity. If everyone's private lives were laid out in public then there would be a case for sacking most of the workforce.
hyperion 4th April 2014, 01:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by snootyjim
Point is, he didn't make that donation in the name of the company. It was in a private capacity. If everyone's private lives were laid out in public then there would be a case for sacking most of the workforce.
You're right. The fact that he got exactly what he deserved is entirely beside the point. The point is, it doesn't matter if it was private or not. His actions led to his company being boycotted. He damaged the company's image and that's all that counts to them. Don't worry about what happens with everyone else's private life. The rest of us get sacked at the drop of a hat anyway and can't do jack about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Sucks when someone imposes their personal opinion on your life, eh, Eich? :p
Indeed, karma is a bitch.
Cthippo 4th April 2014, 05:29 Quote
If he had been elected CEO of whatever corporation then the donation probably would have raised a few eyebrows and spurred an op-ed or two. Being CEO of Mozilla is different though. They are a company that lives and dies by indirect revenue and for whom reputation is very important. Mozilla is expected to reflect the values of the larger tech community, one of which is tolerance.

in many ways it's more like being a politician that a CEO in that by taking such a public position they are expected to demonstrate a higher set of values.
Corky42 4th April 2014, 07:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by snootyjim
Point is, he didn't make that donation in the name of the company. It was in a private capacity. If everyone's private lives were laid out in public then there would be a case for sacking most of the workforce.
But the moment he gave financial support it stopped being a privately held belief, and became public.
Nexxo 4th April 2014, 07:45 Quote
Exactly --and by donating he was effectively attempting to turn personal belief into public policy.
GeorgeStorm 4th April 2014, 10:11 Quote
I can understand why they did it, as it was damaging their image as a whole, but I personally don't think it should have.

He was presumably best for the job pre this coming out and it having this knock on affect, so I think it's a pity that this has happened, nobody really wins.
Sloth 4th April 2014, 17:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
But Eich did not keep it to his personal beliefs, did he? He donated money to a political lobby with the express purpose of imposing those beliefs on others. Now he knows what it feels like to have his life ambitions thwarted by other people's personal beliefs.
I can't get behind the "taste of his own medicine" mindset. If what he's done is wrong, I don't intend to do the same. The donation was made with his own money on his own time. As a professional, Eich should be capable of properly performing his role as CEO in the manner that Mozilla expects as he indeed stated he would. And, we can hope, learn a bit from the experience as well.
Nexxo 6th April 2014, 20:20 Quote
Karma, dude. It's a bitch.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums