Hacker News Reader

Comment by webwright | Hacker News Reader

For those who are asking about his politics and getting downvoted, here's why. His politics almost certainly don't matter, UNLESS they are way outside those of the majority of his "constituents". For example, if he pro-religious-freedom, that's fine. If he's for a flat-tax, that's okay to most folks. If he's pro-choice, there are a few who'd get grumpy. If he's a climate-change denier, a lot of folks would question his thinking and/or ethics. If he was an enthusiastic neo-nazi, we'd start marching on Mozilla. For Mozilla's constituents (users, developers, employees), being anti-LGBT was well outside the realm of acceptable political beliefs.

In short, let's leave politics out of this kind of stuff UNLESS the candidate is demonstrably in one of the outer circles of "unacceptable viewpoints".

View on HN

In short, let's leave politics out of this kind of stuff UNLESS the candidate is demonstrably in one of the outer circles of "unacceptable viewpoints".

It's deeply unsettling that you refer to beliefs and viewpoints instead of speech or actions, and moreover that a person's political views are only to be scrutinized if they're minority views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

that's glib nonsense

there is essentially no evidence that actions are unaffected by beliefs and viewpoints, and that's precisely what you're asking us to uncritically accept

   Mozilla is uniquely vulnerable to political incompetence because it’s not 
   just some corp, it’s also FOSS. It is still a FOSS project, yes?
   Convincing people to donate their highly-technical labor to maintain your 
   cash cow for you is a delicate political art.
   Free-software contributors want, in return: a degree of control and 
   ownership, an association with a respected brand, warm fuzzy feelings.
   In the USA it is routinely assumed that you don’t share the worldview of the 
   person who signs your paycheck. (Cue: Dolly Parton soundtrack)
   But society interprets donations as a form of endorsement. So if your 
   business relies on donors, you’d better make ‘em proud.
   
   -mechanical_fish

that's glib nonsense

0. Are you sure you didn't just misunderstand what was being said?

there is essentially no evidence that actions are unaffected by beliefs and viewpoints

1. I don't know how you got that from what I wrote. I was responding to a post that specifically refers to "unacceptable viewpoints", not unacceptable actions. It's the refusal to make a distinction at all that is unsettling, especially when it's being described as the proper heuristic for determining whether someone is above scrutiny or not.

and that's precisely what you're asking us to uncritically accept

2. I'm not asking you to uncritically accept anything. I'm stating my personal unwillingness to uncritically accept the notion that thinking the wrong thing or having a minority point of view ought to itself a punishable offense. A person's merit is not the sum of the popularity of his beliefs.

I don't buy it. After all, if he's never done anything outside the realm of acceptable political beliefs, then nobody has anything to lose by going into his politics. And if he has, they surely have the right to know, especially the Mozilla employees. Clearly, that's not why those comments are being downvoted.

Either the HN crowd is finally tired of the political chicanery or they're afraid that fostering further discussion could reveal something about Chris Beard they don't like. This would cause yet another round of political nonsense that winds up in a second Mozilla CEO resigning. That would be extremely embarrassing not just for Mozilla, but Silicon Valley as a whole.

> let's leave politics out of this kind of stuff UNLESS the candidate is demonstrably in one of the outer circles of "unacceptable viewpoints".

Unless you've got an objective outside referee to decide what is acceptable, your proposal is meaningless in practice.

This is too weak. His politics don't matter, period, unless he brings them into the office himself.

No. Bringing views into the office can be a subtle thing. Would you work for an unapologetic racist if he promised to not let race impact his management? If you think prejudice is something that a person can turn off when they walk into the office, you need to study it more.

Cultural consensus was reached long ago about most matters involving race, but cultural consensus about gay marriage is more recent (Obama, for example, opposed gay marriage not so long ago). So this comparison is a bit apples-to-oranges.

But, following this comparison, what if this hypothetical racist had an established work history of not letting his/her racial opinions impact management? Eich founded Mozilla and likely had a great deal of influence on the its culture. Yet he did nothing I've heard of to impede Mozilla's organizations from embracing diversity in all forms.

>hypothetical racist had an established work history of not letting his/her racial opinions impact management

I would still feel very uncomfortable working at such a company, and I think that's the sort of environment Mozilla wanted to avoid.

Apples-to-oranges-- true. But somewhere early in the race discussion in our country, some companies stopped hiring people who were openly racist... Likely these companies had constituencies (customers, employees, neighbors) who were unusually liberal. Unsurprising that a company in SF (15%+ LGBT, very liberal, etc) would be the first.

"what if this hypothetical racist had an established work history of not letting his/her racial opinions impact management?"

I'm not sure that's possible (bias creeps into just about everything we do-- and this is a pretty strong bias). Is it possible for someone with these views to not have them creep into promotion discussions, pay raises, meeting invites, tone in emails? Even if it is, having an opinion that is abhorrent to a majority of your potential hires, partners, reporters, and customers makes it pretty hard to lead.

I realize it's hard to imagine someone with such prejudices treating everyone fairly nonetheless. But I read everything I could find on the Eich controversy, and I found no evidence that Eich had brought his politics into the workplace. One thing is for sure -- had he remained CEO, he would have had a lot of eyes watching to make sure he did not do so.

I stand by my original statement.

EDITED to add: after all, if you're right that he would have been unable to keep his prejudice out of the office, you wouldn't have had to wait very long before he screwed up in some way, and then he could have been fired with real cause.

I completely agree with you. Coping with him and working pacifically would have been a totally admirable move by the LGTB mozilla community, showing that you can work side to side with people who strongly disagree with you. Specially when the LGTB comunnity themselves have been target of similar work discrimination for centuries.

Relevant:

http://i.imgur.com/ztDKKbr.png

That's what I thought too. If the CEO does a good job and the company is succeeding, who cares what his/her personal beliefs are? As long as those are not transferred onto the company.

Obviously that is not true. Maybe they shouldn't, but they did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com