Mozilla Statement on Diversity
blog.mozilla.org
blog.mozilla.org
However this post sends the wrong message for one reason - It is left unsigned by the CEO or anybody else in the organization. The omission of any sort of statement on his behalf speaks more than had Mozilla not addressed the concerns at all. At the very least, some high-level executive could have signed the post. The fact it isn't signed by anybody makes it seem like what could be a hollow promise.
That said, from my personal experience, I disagree about the politics of individual executives, but that seems much more like a subjective statement, so I wouldn't enter a knife fight based on that assertion :)
This is an important matter to the community which created and supported Mozilla from the beginning.
To us, Mozilla represents freedoms and rights for all people. For the incoming CEO to have taken a strong (and public) position at odds with that representation suggests that Mozilla has changed, or will change, or that we were mistaken.
This compromises Eich's ability to be an effective leader of the community. He is presumed to support inequality, bigotry, and hatred.
How can we ignore this? Mozilla is bigger and broader and stronger than one person, but Eich's presumed views are toxic and antithetical to what we believe Mozilla stands for.
These views should not be elevated to a position of official and executive leadership in our community.
Other than the donation, what do we know?
That he doesn't think gay people should have the same rights as straight people? Was this a trick question?
> What's wrong with it being a deeply-held belief?
That we are putting it to a vote at all will be a point of historical embarrassment in the not so distant future. Is this not clear?
I don't understand the incredulity; it's all rather plain.
Wait, what? Alright, let's start from the beginning.
"Hell, for that matter, what exactly is this position everyone keeps ascribing to him?"
It may seem like we can't really tell, because he never really openly commented on this, but what we do know is this:
* he donated $1,000 of his own money to support Proposition 8
* the full text of Proposition 8 (according to Wikipedia):
Section I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act." Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Is it really hard to figure out that Brendan Eich is a man who would pay $1,000 so that two consenting people in love can not marry if they are of the same sex?
I am not a gay person myself and I think it's safe to assume you are neither. And you might have read http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/03/24/goodbye_firefox_m... by now. But I really recommend doing a little bit of a research on the topics of gay marriage and LGBTs to see what exactly is wrong with his belief that LGBT people don't deserve basic human and civil rights.
Note: I was only responding to the quoted text. It's a whole another issue whether he should resign as a CEO of an organization that prides itself for being open and inclusive (or at least issue an apology and/or a statement of his changed mind on this issue). Also another question is whether it is the right solution to boycott a whole company which I am sure is full of people who do not agree with the new CEO's belief.
Why would either of those options happen? Since when is a person not entitled to his own opinions and beliefs? Him being the CEO has nothing to do with the stand on diversity of the organization itself, that was the whole point of Mozilla's statement. He is not firing his gay employees or enforcing his agenda upon the organization because that has nothing to do with his current position at Mozilla. In fact, the money he spent was his own, not Mozilla's. One can do whatever the fuck one wants with his own money as long as it's legal.
Making his stance against gay marriage public was probably not a good idea from a business standpoint, but there's absolutely nothing from that that should taint Mozilla's image.
We don't really know yet how his personal beliefs will affect the company. Read through some of the other comments here, I agree it could just be in very subtle -- yet still negative -- ways.
What I think is more interesting is how this reveals how deeply rooted sexism and homophobia are in our society. Yes, racism is still obviously a problem, but think for a moment what the reactions would be if the new CEO was known to have donated to KKK.
Here are some more fun exercises:
* what if the new CEO was a scientologist?
* what if the new CEO was an African American and it was revealed he donated to a group that attempts to make interracial marriage illegal again because he believes white people are sub-human creatures (the way the actual new CEO probably sees gay people, since he doesn't believe they deserve human and civil rights)?
* what if the new CEO was a neo-nazi sympathizer?
* what if the new CEO was a woman who really, really doesn't like men (and maybe even donated to some cause that attacks men or men's rights in some way)?
You can argue that all of these are just opinions. But where do we draw the line? People are usually very inconsistent with that. Homophobia is tolerated while putting a woman in a leading position makes people question this decision. Heck, people get all riled up over Ben Affleck being the next Batman, but the fact Bill Murray abused his wife doesn't stop him from being a geek idol.
Yes, making his opinions and actions public were a bad and stupid idea, but he's not a criminal for having opinions that differ from yours, and his current job isn't being the Pope. His job position isn't centered around his morality, it's centered around his performance as CEO of the organization. Again, stupid move to make his unpopular opinions public, yes. But having a personal stance doesn't make him evil.
It wasn't a "stupid idea" to make his actions public. Actually he didn't, someone had to discover this. He's actually being a coward and won't even admit what his views are.
And while it's not criminal to stomp on other people's human and civil rights -- that is if those people are gay, one day it will be. Taking away (or at least trying to) someone's rights does make you evil.
The problem here is with the line "acting on his opinions". He didn't go into a church and bust-up a marriage ceremony. He didn't go drag a guy behind his truck. He didn't go and give weapons to his local skinheads to go make trouble.
He went and gave money, as is acceptable in place of a letter of support and considered an idiomatic way of voicing an opinion, to an organization doing something that many disagree with.
You are trying to make an argument for censuring people based on their participation in local government.
Much as we all hope that in a few years everyone will look back on LGBT discrimination as silly and outmoded, I hope we too will look back at this time of civic indifference and inactivity and say "Well, we now know that we get the kind of governance we work towards".
If you disagree with him, then disagree with him. And while you're at it, do it The American Way (TM) by boycotting sh*t and blogging and giving money to organizations that he finds morally reprehensible and electing (buying? :|) politicians that support your view.
You could say that the private views of Chick-Fil-A's owner do not impact how the company does business, but I think it would be naive to say that it doesn't have some effect, both on the employees, and on people external to the company.
Or to give a non-political example, if your CEO believes the best way to motivate people is to scream insults at them, tell them their work sucks, or otherwise keep them in a state of fear, then, even if it isn't official company policy to do so, that management 'culture' will percolate down to middle level managers, so that suddenly you have a whole hierarchy of aggressive, alpha-male scream-bags who think they're the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.
Your opinion whether this outrage is justified or not doesn't matter. It is there and Mozilla should deal with it.
The whole statement suggests that Mozilla believe treating employees fairly and equally (at least on the specific point of insurance) is somehow remarkably good of them.
I found this a very negative statement which makes me think less of Mozilla.
That is awesome, actions speak louder than words.
It about as strong a stance as saying "we provide clean toilets".