Hacker News Reader

Comment by BrendanEich | Hacker News Reader

I was executive sponsor of Rust, which Graydon Hoare was doing as a personal project while working with me on ES4. Rob Sayre, JS team manager, agreed Rust should be an official project, so Graydon went full time on Rust at Mozilla. This was in 2008.

Later, others notably Niko Matsakis and Patrick Walton (apologies for leaving yet other folks’ names out) took Rust to 1.0.

Mitchell didn’t know what Rust was until I explained it, wasn’t CEO when we made it an official project, but was CEO for this:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/programming-language-rust-mozi...

View on HN

Holy shit, this is actually Eich. Comment deserves more attention

Huge fan, you were pushed out unfairly - it's wild that you were fired for donating money to a vote that passed. It was a normal and popular opinion at the time.

Brendan, I'm a big fan of a lot of your work, but I really think it's a poor look commenting in this thread at all. Most folks on HN are well aware of Mitchell's record, and those that aren't...well it's willful ignorance on their part.

Why is this a poor look? I was not aware of Brendan's involvement with Rust, nor the effect of the firings on the Rust team.

You are only getting Brendan's story, and why is Brendan going out of his way to attack Mitchell Baker? It strongly implies some powerful drive besides sharing information.

Why are you fighting against facts from people that were there and why are you white knighting the person who has destroyed firefox’s marketshare?

Whatever white knighting is, I'm interested in the truth, in the dangers of Internet mobs, and in fairness to anyone (including you). All are essential. Look at what our world has become as people disparage all that.

> the person who has destroyed firefox’s marketshare?

One aspect of that mob mentality: You skipped past having evidence and reasoning for that assertion; it's just assumed. And then you act out in anger that anyone would question the mob's assumptions.

I did not attack Mitchell.

Maybe there is some misunderstanding here (and I was surprised to see it): You took the time to post a comment that,

1) Reduces Mitchell's role in supporting Rust

2) Emphasizes Mitchell's role in the layoffs / reduction of Rust.

What was your point? If I misunderstood, my apologies.

Don’t ignore context. The comment to which my first comment above replied implied that Mitchell (for Mozilla) was due credit for Rust.

Your (1) is still planting a falsehood: Mitchell’s role when I sponsored Rust was not CEO, she did not have to approve or reject Rust, but she did assent to my advice that we make Rust an official project.

This is not an attack, it’s simply what happened. You are the one who keeps concern trolling, or whatever it is you are doing, to give Mitchell undue credit or to shield her from anything that could be taken as criticism.

Grandparent of comment to which I first replied:

> I can't think of any important things Mozilla has created since pushing Brendan Eich out 9 years ago.

Comment to which I replied, which you wrote:

> Rust, for example.

Let's recap, since you seem to have a very short context window or memory. Someone wrote they couldn't think of anything important Mozilla created after I left. You cited Rust. I testified that Rust started many years before I left and I was Rust's C-level sponsor and immediate colleague of its creator.

You then reappear after several nesting replies to imply I'm lying and have bad motives. After this, here we are with you ignoring your own false claim that Mozilla created Rust after I left. It seems to me, without ascribing motive, that you are the one with a weak grasp on the truth here, even the truth of what you wrote in prior comments on this page.

I think the public and personal contexts are getting mixed together here, to bad effect (as always).

It's a personal situation for you and I can't imagine how much s-t you have heard and taken over the years. You have the misfortune to be personally invested in a public issue, and I'm glad I'm not in your shoes. If we were at a dinner party, of course I wouldn't say a word about it - it would be rude to you and you know infinitely more about it.

But we're not at a private dinner; we're in a public context. People discuss public issues without being experts or researching every detail; they will get some things wrong or be imprecise. Also, they are just not as focused as you are - understandably - on the same things and at the same level detail. When I credited Mozilla with Firefox and Rust, I didn't specifically credit Mitchell Baker with it, nor did I care about that detail of who did what (also, I didn't talk about creation; much of the Rust development was after you - but I only say that because you care; I don't). That's really important to you and so that's what you focused on and I can see where you got that impression - it just wasn't important enough to clarify. It was a bit sloppy, but I'm not writing a dissertation or a contract.

You did inject yourself personally into a 'public context'; I don't think the anger is appropriate, nor your bullshit about my motives. What I wrote was a genuine complement to everyone at Mozilla, including you: It was reminding the world that Mozilla has done so far is spectacular - unreal, heroic achievements that changed the world, twice over. Mozilla is just Mozilla to me, not one person or another.

Still, I apologize that I wasn't more polite when I remarked about potential bias. I didn't respond directly to you, but I should have been careful to make it respectful - not because you are a big deal on some scale, but just the opposite: you're a human being. I knew you were around and regardless of context, I don't buy that public figures are free game for abuse. Good luck with Brave, another great idea that I hope changes the world.

What a surfeit of words to fail to justify your false reply about "important things Mozilla has created" after I left.

You were the one who insinuated something about motives, here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39312219

I already said I was not going to speculate on your motives, after easily showing your false claim: that Mozilla created Rust after I left.

So the only "bullshit" about motives has come from you. And you are the only one who seemed emotional, if not angry, to the point you threw "attack" as a typical DARVO move. This is pure projection.

It matters who did what, when. Especially in view of Mitchell's power of the purse at Mozilla. Yes, she could have killed Rust, but it would have blown up in her face and she had no need to kill it. No, she does not get credit for creating Rust even after I left. The Rust team was working on spin-out well before they all left. As for Servo, it is better off out of Mozilla: https://news.itsfoss.com/servo-rust-web-engine/.

I think it comes off as petty to punch down, and wanted to let Mr. Eich know (out of respect) in case he didn't realize it. But if he realizes it and doesn't care, or just disagrees, that's his decision.

Punching down implies I’m up. How do you figure that? I’m not at Mozilla, not paying myself a seven figure salary, not ever engaging with the Davos set.

In any event, my comment laid out salient bits Rust history, which however much you might not like them, do not “punch” anyone.

>How do you figure that?

You're a chief executive of a successful web technology and browser organization, while it looks as though Baker is being removed from the one you previously left.

I have no issue with the Rust facts, just that the context makes it look like you're being petty by further highlighting Baker's failure in a thread about what is effectively her removal, and I thought maybe you didn't realize that and would like to know. If you know and don't care, or disagree, then just disregard me.

>I’m not at Mozilla, not paying myself a seven figure salary, not ever engaging with the Davos set.

Mozilla's a dying organization kept on life support by Google and playing make-believe hero of the free web these days. Certainly tough to get much lower than that.

You are assuming facts not in evidence or provably false per public IRS 990 forms:

1. Mitchell was not as far as I know removed.

2. She has extracted over $20M gross pay including bonuses for the last several years. I’ll do the exact math later.

Let’s see how much her comp goes down in this year’s IRS Form 990, which will come out at the earliest in late 2025.

3. Mozilla has a ton of cash in the bank while Brave is still building a new business model. To say I’m doing better in any financial sense is cheeky. If you use Brave, thanks for your support.

Last thing: Mozilla will take years to die, and it could perdure as an NGO, even after Firefox. Don’t assume it will die quickly. We are all dying, in this world.

Tax year 2016 through 2022 IRS Form 990 gross comp for Mitchell sums to

$24,351,822

(Forms at https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200... and on Mozilla's site.)

"Punching down" is a sophomoric dunce-phrase in any event, but even with the most charitable interpretation of that phrase, it's wrong. I was not punching, nor is your asserted direction "down".

Mitchell (along with all leadership) should not be immune from criticism, even (or especially, if the leader in part caused the downfall) if you wrongly believe that they were fired, underpaid, or running a "dying" outfit -- all of which as far as I know are false.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com