Specifically, he donated $1000 to Prop 8. If you're going by that standard....literally the majority of California is ideologically unfit to lead.
I do think a lot of people are in fact unqualified to lead.... being CEO is a very different job.
"Hey what if I financially supported a cause that would restrict the marriage rights of some of my employees, but not others?"
What do you think they'd say about his leadership there?
> If you think it is legitimate to have a promotion ceiling for donators to a particular political side, why not voters
I feel like the other post you're over generalizing to the point of irrelevance.
Donating and voting are the same, in that both are actions of people harboring views that are (supposedly) at odds with effective and fair leadership. Of course, donations make the inability known, whereas by only voting, the inability is real but unknown. I can't say for sure which people voted for Prop 8, but can say that most people are ideologically unqualified.
> I do think a lot of people are in fact unqualified to lead
Naturally only a small percentage of the population are qualified across the board to be CEO of Mozilla.
But that's not what's interesting. What's interesting is that most Californians have political views outside of the realm of acceptability for CEO circa 2014.
I've also never thought that the ballot box would one of the majority-disqualifying criteria.
But I've learned.