https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ has Brendan's response to prop 8 donation.
I mean, this guy is making an appeal to the virtues of tolerance, diversity, and respectful disagreement when asking people to withhold judgement related to his political activism. And that would be fine if the issue in question pertained to any number of open questions facing lawmakers. But when we're talking about Prop. 8 - a law that was directly opposed to the exact values he's espousing here - it's hard to view his appeal as one made in good faith. That's twice as true when the campaign he supported was characterized by astonishing levels of malice and deceit.*
Put simply: you don't get to demand that others be tolerant and passive and respectful when addressing your attempts to block their 14th Amendment rights.
Just...no.
* When Judge Vaughn heard the subsequent legal case he asked the supporters of Prop. 8 if they'd like to submit for his consideration any of the "facts" about the harmfulness of gay marriage that they'd repeatedly cited in public during their scorched-earth media campaign. The catch was that they would have to do so under oath, and suffer penalty of perjury if any claims were found to be knowingly dishonest.
And how many "facts" did these supposedly religious supporters choose to supply? Zero. Zip. Nada. None.
The good news was that while these "believers" didn't give a fig about bearing false witness in the eyes of God, they maintained the presence of mind not to do so before the State of California.
If his behavior or decisionmaking at Mozilla is questionable, that's one thing. But he's never demonstrated any failings there.
All that aside, yeah, it's super questionable why anyone would support prop 8. I can't even speculate. Eich did offer to explain privately to anyone who asked, so maybe you can ask to find out.
Put simply the guys is an asshole. And that's different from a hypocrite, mind you. A hypocrite tries to hide the fact that what he says and does are different. He may not believe in what he's saying, but needs you to think he does.
An asshole, on the other hand, is very open about his belief that different standards apply to him. He'll tell you not to do what he does openly because that's his prerogative. Not yours, his.
Supporting an unjust, intolerant, hateful piece of legislation is one thing. Blasting those who oppose you on the grounds that they're not being tolerant and inclusive is something else. In other words, it's important for YOU to be tolerant. But he can be an intolerant as he damn well pleases.
Start with all the catholics and other people from faiths that are anti-LGBTQ, regardless of their personal beliefs. Add in pretty much everyone from the bible belt and other anti-LGBTQ areas, even if in reality they just keep quiet to avoid attracting attention in a hostile environment.
Keep going as long as you like.
As far as I'm concerned, the key fact is this: His professional conduct and personal life are separate, unless his personal life contains conduct that is so completely unacceptable (i.e. felonies, abuse, etc) that it indicates an inability to perform in his professional capacity. None of this is true. He happens to be a technology professional with beliefs I disagree with; I've worked with plenty and will no doubt work with more of them.
True equality in this case protects everyone, when applied correctly: He doesn't consider my beliefs in the workplace and I don't consider his. We're both safe and free to do whatever we wish (aside from the impact of political lobbying, which is of course not a workplace matter)
A CTO isn't the one ultimately responsible for a company's culture. A CEO is.
For example at various organization-wide events (all-hands, summits) Mitchell is the one giving the "where are we going and what are the goals?" talk. She's also the one to whom non-technical project governance issues ultimately escalate.
The fact that there is a complicated interaction here between the corporate structure and the project structure is a bit confusing; it's not a common setup. But in practice the CEO doesn't have much impact on the culture of the project, from what I've seen.
Edit: Fair enough; it's not even a non-apology -- it's just nauseating.
and why should he issue an apology? he seems to think similarly to around 50% of the population. why on earth should he apologise for that?
On the other hand, I will spend cash money of my very own to try and force the law to comply with my beliefs against others.
I always love bigots with one hand saying: "oh i have my beliefs but don't try and force them on others so please leave me alone" and with the other hand piling money on bigoted campaigns to keep rights from marginalized groups.
It's tiresome and disingenuous.