11 ms·

Inclusiveness at Mozilla

137 points by jallardice 12y ago

morley 12y ago
For those of you who are as confused as I was about why he's being so defensive about LGBT issues, here's context: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/gay-firefox-developers-boycott-mozilla-to-protest-ceo-hire/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/gay-firefox-develope...
- tunesmith 12y ago
  Thanks, after reading the context, his statement seems rather contentless. He may very well be committed to accepting the battles he has already lost. But that kind of social progress is an ever-moving target, and the statement doesn't demonstrate any willingness to keep pace.
  - gcp 12y ago
    Keep pace with what? You can agree on some developments and disagree on others.
  - sp332 12y ago
    Progress? Who gets to decide where society is going, and why is he excluded from doing that himself?
AdrianRossouw 12y ago
i'm really not one of those baying for his head, but didn't that just kind of read like 'but some of my best friends are black!'?
- rubiquity 12y ago
  No, it didn't read like that at all.
- Argorak 12y ago
  To be fair, he explicitly asks for being held accountable on those grounds. That, you usually don't do if you are just talking about your "best black friends".
- AdrianRossouw 12y ago
  i apologize for that last comment. that was uncharacteristically pithy of me.
asdfologist 12y ago
Nothing in the post indicates he's reversed his stance on prohibiting his gay employees from marrying.
- Touche 12y ago
  Luckily he doesn't have authority over that as their CEO. He addressed the things he does have authority over.
- rubiquity 12y ago
  Would you believe him even if he did? If this whole event caused him to change his stance on gay marriage, it would probably be the wrong event to do so. If Brendan decides to support gay marriage it should happen because his values have changed, not because people are mad that he is a CEO who doesn't support gay marriage.
- MrZongle2 12y ago
  Which companies have CEOs that have the power to prevent anyone from marrying?
  - foolinaround 12y ago
    When did he prohibit his gay employees from marrying? Or has any actions of his in the management of mozilla been proven to be to the detriment of gay employees? If not, what is all this witchhunt about? it is true that gay people were hurt, so they need to take extra care now that they do not start a new witchhunt.
- coldtea 12y ago
  And it's his right as a private citizen to have his own opinion on the matter. That's why people vote, because they don't agree on all issues. That's totally irrelevant with respect to what he'll do as a CEO. And, last time I checked, prohibiting your employees to marry, was not in a CEO's powers (or responsibilities).
  - brown9-2 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
smirksirlot 12y ago
Expressing sorrow for causing hurt isn't the same as taking responsibility for it. The very first action should be an apology, but that hasn't happened and doesn't look like it'll ever happen.
- macu 12y ago
  There's nothing to apologize for, besides causing hurt. He's not going to apologize for the views he holds, or for contributing to a cause he believed in because he had the means. Even if his views have since changed, which personally I don't find relevant, people should not be expected to apologize for the views they once held, for the reasons they held those views are beyond all of us to explain or denounce. Everyone is struggling to make sense of the world, and popular opinion isn't the official stance for everyone.
hapless 12y ago
He just wanted to take an opportunity to "express [..] sorrow at having caused pain." Eich does not regret his actions, he's just sorry that you felt pain because of the things he did. Classic business-ese non-apology.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  I absolutely despise this sort of dissection of expressions of regret. It's poisonous and never raises the level of discussion. I have serious questions about the sincerity of the motives of people who do it.
  - arrrg 12y ago
    Apologies are very easy (if you actually are sorry). You just say specifically what you did wrong and apologise for that. (Ideally you then also say how you will avoid making the same mistake in the future.) What an apology basically says is that if you had a time machine you would travel back in time and do something differently. What you would do differently, however, is crucially important for whether an apology is meaningful or not. Are you sorry that you were found out? Or are you actually sorry for doing what you are criticised for? That issue is never tackled head-on in this post and that is a very valid (and not poisonous) reason to be unsatisfied with this non-apology apology. He is of course completely free to continue holding his bigoted views (and I certainly would never want him to lie about being sorry, that would be much worse than this apology), but as long as he only apologises for caused sorrow and not actually holding those views he should not expect to be excused from criticism.
  - hapless 12y ago
    It's offensive to "apologize" when you do not actually regret your behavior. It rings false because it is false. It's a cynical attempt to manipulate the audience. Sometimes it is better to say nothing. This post should have remained focused on Eich's workplace policies and promises to staff.
- slucidi 12y ago
  How is that not saying he's sorry he hurt people? I don't understand what you are having a problem with.
thirsteh 12y ago
He is sorry like the NSA is sorry you found out what they've been doing. Brendan Eich doesn't just dislike gays getting married. He hates the concept so much he officially donated to prevent it from being possible. I'm sorry, but I don't sympathize with the argument that he's "entitled to his opinions," because it's more than that. Nevermind that he's now CEO of Mozilla. (I personally don't care if gays can get married in the eyes of a church or not; I care that gays are fundamentally unable to get the same benefits as other people.)
- macu 12y ago
  I haven't seen a single grain of evidence in support of the claim that Brendan Eich hates gay people. He said it himself, "the donation does not in itself constitute evidence of animosity." And I can stand behind him on that. I'm gay and I also find the cultural crusade for gay marriage objectionable. I more go along with the views of the Against Equality group. But since it appears that gay marriage is going to happen regardless, there's no sense resisting it now.
  - smirksirlot 12y ago
    If he doesn't hate gay people, then why not just make his position on marriage clear? He can straight up say "I don't believe in marriage" or whatever.
    - MrZongle2 12y ago
      "If he's not a witch, why does he deny the Church's accusations so emphatically?"
  - orthecreedence 12y ago
    I'd rather the state not recognize marriage whatsoever. Then you can get married to whoever or whatever in any church that will allow it, and that state washes its hands clean of any "side-taking." Instead, the state would offer civil unions to any two consenting people. Now if Mr. RightWing doesn't like your gay marriage, he doesn't have to recognize it, but the state will still issue your "union" without discrimination. The main issue I took with Prop 8 wasn't necessarily that it was discriminatory (although I don't like that either) but that it was taking away rights from a group of people by encoding it into the state's constitution...which is generally a document which codifies people's rights, not lack thereof.
bane 12y ago
"My ongoing commitment to our Community Participation Guidelines, our inclusive health benefits, our anti-discrimination policies, and the spirit that underlies all of these." "...and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain." Ouch, how can somebody hold two opposing thoughts in their head at once? That's basically a denouncement of his own personal efforts. At this point, the best thing he can do to level set things, is to make some equal and public donations to same-sex marriage causes. It sucks when your actions have consequences...especially when those consequences hurt other people. "At the same time, I don’t ask for trust free of context, or without a solid structure to support accountability. No leader or person who has a privileged position should. I want to be held accountable for what I do as CEO. " And that's exactly what's happening. I hope he keeps getting held accountable for participating in the oppression of a minority group until he takes substantive steps to make public amends.
- quesera 12y ago
  > Ouch, how can somebody hold two opposing thoughts in their head at once? The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. - F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Crack-Up", Esquire Magazine (February 1936) Unfortunately, one of the ideas in this case is deeply offensive. Hopefully this is an opportunity to reexamine that idea with a more inclusive mind.
- gcp 12y ago
  I hope he keeps getting held accountable for participating in the oppression of a minority group until he takes substantive steps to make public amends. Didn't he just do that, by promising contrary action rather than a cheap apology?
  - bane 12y ago
    "by promising contrary action rather than a cheap apology?" We'll see. Promises are easily broken, especially when you don't think the subject of the promise is important.
quesera 12y ago
I think this is 95% satisfactory. It's unreasonable to demand that someone change their mind about something (and would you believe it if he claimed he had?), but it's imperative to be sure that his personal opinion will not bleed into his executive function. He knows he's outnumbered, and on the wrong side of history. But he recognizes that he can't change himself on demand. It's the best we can hope for in an honest person. Or, at least, it's the first step. Vigilance, however, is warranted.
- harlanlewis 12y ago
  Eich doesn't appear committed to his personal politics over simply getting through the immediate PR firestorm, and as a result the Mozilla organization may now do more to support LBGT communities than if they'd promoted someone who didn't provoke such a strong response. Combative and messy, but it might be what progress looks like.
  - Tobu 12y ago
    The last he said about his personal politics was this: https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ Enough people have gotten in touch about this that hopefully he'll change his mind about marriage rights in society at large (today's post was still specifically about Mozilla's principles), but he will probably hold on to the fact that this topic is a private (by which people often mean religious) matter for a while longer.
- mythz 12y ago
  Agreed, if he instead claimed that he changed his beliefs as a result of public opinion, he'd have come across as either weak-minded or a liar. It's satisfactory as long as he doesn't abuse his position of power to impose or further his personal political/religious beliefs within Mozilla.
- aestra 12y ago
  >It's unreasonable to demand that someone change their mind about something (and would you believe it if he claimed he had?) It can happen. Take New York Senator Mark Grisanti as an example. He ran on the campaign against gay marriage. When the vote came up for the Marriage Equality Act, he studied the issue extensively and changed his mind. He voted "yes" on the bill. The bill passed despite needing a couple Republican votes "yes" in order to do so. Watch the speech he gave when voting. It is really inspiring. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEfN26t5yk8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEfN26t5yk8 "I would not respect myself if I didn't do the research, have an open mind, and make a decision, an informed decision, based on the information before me"
lawl 12y ago
I have commented on this issue before [0]. I've been thinking about this again. After reading this I think he still stands to his opinion, that he personally thinks gay marriage is wrong. Obviously he's an idiot, but I think even idiots are entitled to their opinion as long as it doesn't interfere with his work at mozilla. I think that is also what he's trying to say with his blog post. I think he made it pretty clear that he does not want this to interfere with his work at mozilla. So as long as he does not discriminate LGBT at work, I think he deserves a shot at it. You can't force him to change his opinion. I think that is more honest than an apology he doesn't mean. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7470134 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7470134
- GuiA 12y ago
  As a CEO, you live, breathe and sleep for the company. While the personal/professional division can be easily made for an employee far down on the org chart who does his job for 8 hours and then goes home, can the same be done for a top level executive, let alone the CEO?
  - lawl 12y ago
    What do you expect from an answer from me on this? Obviously I'd say yes....
    - GuiA 12y ago
      I'm just trying to understand exactly where our reasoning diverges.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >As a CEO, you live, breathe and sleep for the company You'd be surprised. That's just a myth we have, to justify crazy salaries. In fact, there have been tons of CEOs with golden parachutes who could not give a flying duck for the company that hired them. Nokia's recent-ish management comes to mind.
  - macu 12y ago
    This sort of question, in fact the entire uproar, presumes that Brendan Eich is a hateful bigoted person with an agenda, or at least that he has some kind of dangerous impulse we should worry about. Do you think his stomach turns when he's around gay people? I don't believe it for a moment. If anything he probably just feels afraid that someone's going to attack him and accuse him of bigotry. Homophobia and opposition to gay marriage are in my opinion completely different issues, even if they involve many of the same people. We can't automatically hold someone accountable for both.
jedanbik 12y ago
I'm happy he said something. He didn't have to.
- MrZongle2 12y ago
  Unfortunately, he did have to. Eich holds an opinion that, while apparently shared with the majority of Californian voters (as per Prop 8 results), is deeply unpopular with segments of the technical population. These are some of the folks who will help promote and test Mozilla's future releases. They are part of Mozilla's customer base. He had to apologize, because these days holding a politically incorrect opinion is unacceptable. And as demonstrated in this very thread, even his apology isn't enough for some.
  - jkelsey 12y ago
    It wasn't even a apology. He's just highlighted Mozilla's stance on diversity and inclusion, which is good and deserves some credit. However, the facts about this situation remain the same: 1. He donated a large amount of money to a effort to remove a civil right from a certain subset of Californians based on nothing more than their sexual preference. 2. He has not signaled any regret for doing that. That is reprehensible. Mozilla is a wonderful organization, and I'll continue to use Firefox. I don't know if I'll be so willing to donate to the foundation as much anymore. The actions of one person shouldn't ruin all that Mozilla stands for. Regardless, Brendan Eich has tarnished his otherwise amazing reputation with donation to Prop 8 and his unwillingness to admit any wrongdoing. Mozilla's has also done the same to their own reputation by making him CEO.
  - jedanbik 12y ago
    Why is this unfortunate? I don't understand your perspective.
    - MrZongle2 12y ago
      It is unfortunate because even though Mozilla has nothing specifically to do with LGBT issues and Eich has not publicly opined on the subject in the capacity of a Mozilla employee, he must now apologize for having an opinion. Let me repeat that: Eich is apologizing for his opinion. Not his actions as Mozilla CEO or even as an employee. The response from some quarters to punish his deviation from what some parties have declared "acceptable" is breathtaking. It has all the makings of Stalinesque purge with a Web 2.0 twist. Given the subject itself and how so recently it was considered "abnormal" and "unacceptable", I find the whole episode tragically ironic. I have no problem with gay marriage. But I am revulsed by the mob screaming for blood due to Eich's thoughtcrime on this matter.
lhnz 12y ago
Good. This is a promise to act differently when it comes to the company. Perhaps other in this community are right to point out that he's not actually apologised or gone back on his own personal views, but as much as I hate to say it, no amount of shouting and getting angry will get somebody with homophobic viewpoints to change their mind. Generally it takes new experiences involving very close friends or family to form a fresh world view. This is probably the best you could expect. I personally was expecting something far less personal and far more corporate from this but he is instead saying that he is making a personal commitment to equality with his actions and not just his words or HR policies. That's great.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
GuiA 12y ago
Bob becomes the CEO of a large entity, FizzBuzzCorp. In the past, FizzBuzzCorp has been respected for its integrity, respect of its employees, and inclusiveness. However, it turns out that in the past, Bob supported groups that claimed that men and women did not deserve the same rights as citizens; for example, that women should not be able to vote, or be on a comparable pay scale. Now appointed CEO, there is concern that Bob's views are out of line with the company's. Bob says that there is no reason to worry, that FizzBuzzCorp will keep paying its employees equally regardless of gender, giving them the same benefits, etc. as it has historically done. However, Bob does not once say that he regrets his past actions, that they were misinformed, or anything of the sort. Bob insists that FizzBuzzCorp will keep upholding its values; nonetheless, not once does Bob say or do anything which may indicate that his views may have changed. What do we make of Bob? Of FizzBuzzCorp?
- macu 12y ago
  I think we can recognize that Bob and FizzBuzzCorp are separate entities, and that Bob, if competent as a CEO, is also able to recognize and maintain the distinction.
  - GuiA 12y ago
    The problem with this is that opinions have various degrees of influence on business decisions. If FizzBuzzCorp is in the business of building CMSs in PHP, and Bob believes that there is nothing unethical about the diamond business, those two things are far apart enough that you can reasonably trust Bob's opinions on the diamond trade to not influence his decisions as a leader. Even if you think the diamond business is the most awful thing ever, it's extremely unlikely that that Bob's views on the matter will influence the writing of PHP websites, and you can probably overlook it as an employee/customer/investor in FizzBuzzCorp (unless the diamond trade is something you feel really strongly about). However, every company deals with human beings by nature, and implicitly takes a role in social progress just by virtue of being a part of society. If Bob has certain beliefs about the nature of the rights that should be afforded to some humans but not others based on things like their gender (or race, or sexual orientation, or other), then the probability that those beliefs will interact with his decisions during his tenure as a leader is pretty high.
bluthru 12y ago
Would Mozilla appoint someone to CEO who donated $1000 towards a campaign on banning interracial marriage? Is being against same-sex marriage ok as a personal opinion just because we're in the transition period?
- orthecreedence 12y ago
  > Is being against same-sex marriage ok as a personal opinion just because we're in the transition period? Yes. The jury's out on gay marriage still. We all know what the verdict will be, and people who don't support it will be carried along kicking and screaming, but it's still ok socially to oppose gay marriage. That said, it was a stupid move on Mozilla's part. I'm sure he'll be great for the company, but now their masthead practically reads "We hate gays!"
  - gcp 12y ago
    I'm totally fine with our masthead reading "We're understanding of dissenting opinion, even if we believe you're really and utterly wrong". We seem to like to do things the hard way with the press anyhow.
- Confusion 12y ago
  No, Mozilla would not appoint someone to CEO who donated $1000 towards a campaign on banning interracial marriage. However, not very long ago that was an acceptable, even common, personal opinion and people who publicly held it were appointed CEO without any qualms. So yes, being against same-sex marriage is still OK as a personal opinion and does not stand in the way of being appointed CEO. The facts are your answer. You are assuming that this change will be the same as that change. However, that is something history will show and that you cannot speed up by asking questions that only time will tell the answer to. This change is not yet the same as that change and consequently that change cannot yet be used as an argument for how to behave towards this change.
  - zabraxias 12y ago
    Really interesting perspective. Made me think.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- sroerick 12y ago
  I was in SF last week and visited the Mozilla office to see what it looked like. It looked like a locked door with a surveillance camera outside. I understand the need for security and privacy, but it was a little jarring to see it from Mozilla. I'm sure if I can contacted someone for a tour I'd have gotten a better response, but my perception of the organization has changed a little bit.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - pcwalton 12y ago
    Well, like all offices, there are valuables inside. I know that my team makes a very strong effort to be as inclusive as possible. For example in Rust meetups, which are held at the SF office (and are actually organized by Erick Tryzelaar, who isn't on staff), the whole front space is open.
  - dblohm7 12y ago
    I don't think that's very fair. Every office that I've been to has an open reception area and community spaces that may be used by guests provided that they sign in. Mozilla is still a tech organization whose offices are filled with electronic devices that are vulnerable to theft. It wasn't long ago that somebody broke into the Toronto office and stole a bunch of stuff (they left the Windows 8 devices, though).
  - nephyrin 12y ago
    This door? http://nextcity.org/images/made/images/daily/_resized/img_mozilla_space_640_640_90.jpg http://nextcity.org/images/made/images/daily/_resized/img_mo... I agree, it's outrageous that a door that opens onto the embarcadero be locked when the room is unoccupied, or that the building has a security camera near that door, which happens to be the corner of the building facing the street! Do they expect everyone to go to the main entrance to talk to someone or something?
wvenable 12y ago
> I know there are concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla. This isn't right. The concern is about Brendan's fostering equality in the world, not just at Mozilla. Getting promoted just brought this 'issue' back into the forefront again. He is also now the face of Mozilla and some people who are concerned about equality in the world now feel differently about Mozilla because of that.
DaleHarries1 12y ago
If he stays as CEO then Mozilla will remain a tainted company IMHO. The last thing an open source company wants to do is alienate vast swaths of their contributor base. And what happens when that base leaves? You're basically left with a bunch of conservative, white guys (Lets be brutally honest) who hate gay people and god knows what else. My view has always been that racists are homophobes and homophobes think women should know their place. In a tech world trying to be more inclusive of all these groups this will cause Mozilla huge damage. Talk about handing the keys of the castle to your competitors! I'm sure Facebook, Google et al will be itching to hire some good Mozilla devs!
- gcp 12y ago
  You can say a lot of things about Mozilla, but that it's a bunch of conservative white guys? That just shows...ignorance? For what it's worth some gay employees spoke out about how they feel Mozilla treats gay people, and it was pretty positive.
tiles 12y ago
Eich's personal stance on marriage now cannot have an impact on his role, or he will be at heavy odds with this blog post and the public opinion of many Mozilla works to include. He will be under scrutiny as long as he remains CEO. Admitting a sudden change of heart would have zero effect on Mozilla. I'm not sure what result people are expecting otherwise, but if the workplace environment he describes in this post is satisfactory, what more can be changed?
- mef 12y ago
  An explanation of why he is anti-gay marriage. That would speak more about his personal values and by extension how he will make decisions as CEO than his commitment to Mozilla's inclusiveness policy does. As a newly-minted CEO, his character is on trial.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    "As a newly-minted CEO, his character is on trial." LOL. We've now descended into complete ridiculousness.
jackmaney 12y ago
This is not even close to good enough. I will continue to refuse to use Firefox out of general principle.
- MrZongle2 12y ago
  So what is good enough? That Eich resign over his personal opinions? That he abandon his personal ethics for business reasons? That he demonstrate his good faith by paying a modern-day indulgence to an advocacy group? Or is Eich now irredeemable?
  - jackmaney 12y ago
    Whether or not Eich is redeemable is unknown. In the meantime, I refuse to support any company that he leads. It's that simple.
- nfoz 12y ago
  What do you truly know about the political views of the individuals involved in producing the other web browsers?
  - jackmaney 12y ago
    Far less than what I know about that of Eich.
- davexunit 12y ago
  How about Iceweasel or GNU Icecat? It's free software, man. You have your anger focused on the wrong things.
  - jackmaney 12y ago
    [shrug] I guess I could use either of those, but Chrome suits me fine, thanks.
    - davexunit 12y ago
lukasm 12y ago
Maybe he supports gay guys and don't want them to go through marriage, divorce and all that shit.
- macu 12y ago
  That is very generous of you ;P
pavpanchekha 12y ago
Wait, wait, hold on. Folks, this man isn't a politician, he isn't a social crusader, he isn't using his position as a platform. At worst, he's rich. He hasn't taken the throne, or even government office; he's the CEO of a private corporation that makes web browsers of all things. Now, sure, he might be against gay marriage. And you might disagree, and have a variety of principles to back your position. But why do we demand perfection in our public figures? Would we have the same controversy if Brendan voted Tea Party (but only privately)? If he were against abortion? If he didn't believe NASA needed a bigger budget (or that it did, if you lean the other way)? Sure, gay marriage is good, people should support it, it is a valuable social cause. I can understand your upset if you work for Mozilla, except that Brendan has already stated several times that no policies at Mozilla would change due to his personal views. But can we at least hold that while wrong, being against gay rights does not immediately make you the world's most despicable human being? Or, if every opponent of gay rights is sub-human (a conceit that some anti-gay-right crusaders hold in reverse), what issues exactly are similary important? Must we raise a controversy every time a tech leader comes out pro-NSA? Anti-immigration-reform? Pro-university education? Anti-startup? Anti-basic-science? (Note that, just like Brendan's, these positions might have reasoned arguments; you wouldn't know if you're too busy pillorying whomever holds them.) I have a few Christian friends. They are not total idiots, or oblivious to reality; I do not suspect them of secretly trying to convert me. They are very smart folks, who do good work, who happen to be Christian. I know a guy who denies climate change. I don't trust his knowledge of climatology, but then again I mostly talk to him about math, where his thoughts on climate science are irrelevant. And he's likewise a smart guy, great to work with, industrious, careful, and a great friend. I don't demand perfect agreement in my friends; I won't demand it of Brendan.
- MrZongle2 12y ago
  Would we have the same controversy if Brendan voted Tea Party (but only privately)? If he were against abortion? If he didn't believe NASA needed a bigger budget (or that it did, if you lean the other way)? Yes. Yes. Yes. This is America in 2014. If somebody holds a politically incorrect position, they must be destroyed: their employer must be named, shamed, and pressured to fire that person. If that person runs a company, that company must be destroyed: it must be boycotted, attacked with FUD, and besmirched. It's not right, but that's apparently what our culture has descended to. Am I wrong? Many of the responses here on HN and elsewhere online about this topic over the last 24 hours indicate that I am not.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
If he doesn't fully explain his position on why he donated to that campaign, then he remains hard to trust. He seems to be refusing to state his full position on the reasons behind that donation, other than to ask people to take his word that his reasons are reasonable, while using the fact that people are being rude as a defense not to speak publicly on the subject, which isn't entirely reassuring. https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/
- thescribe 12y ago
  Given the response here, I think that just makes him a rational human.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    That's just the "No explanation is required because some people have been rude." line of argument I was commenting about though. Iterating it doesn't particularly convince me.
DanielStraight 12y ago
Brendan Eich has now publicly committed to... 1. Include LGBT individuals in making decisions regarding discrimination and inclusivity. 2. Continue health benefits for same-sex partners. 3. Uphold anti-discrimination policies. 4. Create new initiatives to reach out to those who feel marginalized. 5. Support an initialize for bringing under-represented people (including LGBT individuals) into tech. And apparently he is committing to all these things despite holding a personal belief that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples. I admit my perspective on this may be limited due to being a white, heterosexual male, but... Why is having Brendan Eich's personal approval more important than having his support? Why does it matter what he believes internally if all his external actions are supportive? We use products and services from numerous tech companies every day, never even asking how their CEOs feel about LGBT issues or what actions they take to be inclusive. But now people are upset because one of the few CEOs to make such a strong public statement of support for LGBT issues (I can't think of another one who has even made any statement at all) doesn't personally support homosexual marriages? It's bizarre. Why is silence (from other CEOs) better than a stated willingness to support people even if he disagrees with what they are doing personally?
- ebiester 12y ago
  It's not logical -- and none of it pretend it is. All I can say is that when one grows up having been physically, emotionally, verbally, and spiritually harassed for a greater part of one's life, these little things end up bringing up the whole ball of shit. It short circuits logic, but it's a common human trait. Some Jewish people still won't buy Volkswagon cars, for example, and I remember hearing WWII Veterans who wouldn't buy anything from Japan. Pain has a long, long memory.
  - DanielStraight 12y ago
    This is an argument I can understand. Thank you.
- m0a0t0 12y ago
  Because he actively went out to limit peoples rights. Those who are silent on the matter are not actively harming LGBT people and I think it would be known if the companies were not inclusive. In the world of businesses (and even Mozilla) it's generally wise not to take people at face value and let their actions do their talking. So far the only action is a negative and so he is judged in the way he is. I would also note that he does not really offer an apology for his actions, only "sorrow at having caused pain" which sounds like the bare minimum he could get away with
ebbv 12y ago
This is all nice but I'm still not supporting Mozilla. Brendan's views are akin to him being against interracial marriage to me. Would we give him a pass if he said "We'll hire African Americans and extend benefits to them, I just personally think of them as sub-human."? Obviously not. Brendan needs to join the 21st century.
- gcp 12y ago
  Feel free to think Brendan as a shithead, just don't think of the other 900-plus people in Mozilla as shitheads unless Brendan starts doing totally unreasonable things and we go along with it. Thanks.
azinman2 12y ago
What's left unsaid is the reason why this was called into question at all -- his financial support of Prop 8 -- and why it shouldn't be an issue at Mozilla. Inheriting an existing culture of openness and maintaining its status quo is not progress nor a reversal of his position on gay marriage. If anything the omission of any reference to it simply shows that his own personal views haven't evolved at all -- he's just willing to put them at bay while at Mozilla (especially when people make a stink). While that itself is helpful to know, his inner thought process which drives any decision he makes hasn't been addressed. This reminds me of seeing at Google the results of an internal survey on LGBT issues. The responses from some engineers, particularly from Russia, were so shockingly hateful it was truly frightening. I'm not sure why engineers who should be logic driven can become so irrationally hateful towards others who are unlike themselves. Giving $1000 to prevent someone else from getting married is quite a statement on his value structures.
strongsauce 12y ago
I am very confused by the different signals the javascript community continues to send about this situation compared to others. On the one hand, people continually get shouted down for saying or doing things that are offensive or insensitive to minority groups (and rightly so), however a lot of the same people seem to give Eich a lot of slack and choose to consider this situation as not a big deal. I do not know the Eich, and I am not gay, so the only thing I can compare it to is as someone who is Asian. If I found out that the CEO of the company I work at was known to have donated to a proposition that didn't want Asians to have equal rights, or even simply, not be able to marry, I am not sure I could continue working there. Mozilla itself as an organization seems to be very supportive of everyone regardless of sexual orientation, race, or other preferences, so does that mean individually I am free to support legislation that will legalize inequality? I understand that some LGBT employees at Mozilla have written in support of Eich, but is that fair to only take in the opinion of one person as the opinion of the rest of the group? If someone said, "Look Jackie is Asian, and when I do my ching-chong squinty-eye impression while wearing a conical hat, they laugh and are OK with it" that would still not make the situation okay despite how Jackie feels about it. I guess I am confused, and would like to understand this situation. I'm not really looking for blood and seeking his resignation. It seems like in this post he is going to do what is right for the company and continue supporting their current policies. That part is great but why was he given a free pass before this post?
michaelwww 12y ago
All he had to say for context was "My religious beliefs guide me to hold that marriage is between one man and one woman." A lot of decent people believe that. I disagree and believe gay people should be able to marry as well, but I wouldn't expect people in Eich's group to hold that against me. It's a free country with freedom of religion and belief.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
DanBC 12y ago
As a private individual he donated $X to anti-gay causes. How much has he, as a Mozilla employee, spent on pro-gay causes? Releasing a pink Mozilla phone that sends Y% of profit to pro-gay causes might be a good move.
jbaudanza 12y ago
For comparison, this is Google's position on Prop 8: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-calif... The tech and open source community owes a lot to its LGBT contributors. When their rights are being threatened, we should be the first in line to offer support. That is why this situation is so upsetting to many of us.
asdfologist 12y ago
If he contributed $1000 to a campaign to bring back slavery, and then he declared that Mozilla won't tolerate racial discrimination, would that make everything OK?

137 points by jallardice 12y ago

For those of you who are as confused as I was about why he's being so defensive about LGBT issues, here's context: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/gay-firefox-developers-boycott-mozilla-to-protest-ceo-hire/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/gay-firefox-develope...

tunesmith 12y ago
Thanks, after reading the context, his statement seems rather contentless. He may very well be committed to accepting the battles he has already lost. But that kind of social progress is an ever-moving target, and the statement doesn't demonstrate any willingness to keep pace.
- gcp 12y ago
  Keep pace with what? You can agree on some developments and disagree on others.
- sp332 12y ago
  Progress? Who gets to decide where society is going, and why is he excluded from doing that himself?

AdrianRossouw 12y ago

i'm really not one of those baying for his head, but didn't that just kind of read like 'but some of my best friends are black!'?

rubiquity 12y ago
No, it didn't read like that at all.
Argorak 12y ago
To be fair, he explicitly asks for being held accountable on those grounds. That, you usually don't do if you are just talking about your "best black friends".
AdrianRossouw 12y ago
i apologize for that last comment. that was uncharacteristically pithy of me.

asdfologist 12y ago

Nothing in the post indicates he's reversed his stance on prohibiting his gay employees from marrying.

Touche 12y ago
Luckily he doesn't have authority over that as their CEO. He addressed the things he does have authority over.
rubiquity 12y ago
Would you believe him even if he did? If this whole event caused him to change his stance on gay marriage, it would probably be the wrong event to do so. If Brendan decides to support gay marriage it should happen because his values have changed, not because people are mad that he is a CEO who doesn't support gay marriage.
MrZongle2 12y ago
Which companies have CEOs that have the power to prevent anyone from marrying?
- foolinaround 12y ago
  When did he prohibit his gay employees from marrying? Or has any actions of his in the management of mozilla been proven to be to the detriment of gay employees? If not, what is all this witchhunt about? it is true that gay people were hurt, so they need to take extra care now that they do not start a new witchhunt.
coldtea 12y ago
And it's his right as a private citizen to have his own opinion on the matter. That's why people vote, because they don't agree on all issues. That's totally irrelevant with respect to what he'll do as a CEO. And, last time I checked, prohibiting your employees to marry, was not in a CEO's powers (or responsibilities).
- brown9-2 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

smirksirlot 12y ago

Expressing sorrow for causing hurt isn't the same as taking responsibility for it. The very first action should be an apology, but that hasn't happened and doesn't look like it'll ever happen.

macu 12y ago
There's nothing to apologize for, besides causing hurt. He's not going to apologize for the views he holds, or for contributing to a cause he believed in because he had the means. Even if his views have since changed, which personally I don't find relevant, people should not be expected to apologize for the views they once held, for the reasons they held those views are beyond all of us to explain or denounce. Everyone is struggling to make sense of the world, and popular opinion isn't the official stance for everyone.

hapless 12y ago

He just wanted to take an opportunity to "express [..] sorrow at having caused pain." Eich does not regret his actions, he's just sorry that you felt pain because of the things he did. Classic business-ese non-apology.

waterlesscloud 12y ago
I absolutely despise this sort of dissection of expressions of regret. It's poisonous and never raises the level of discussion. I have serious questions about the sincerity of the motives of people who do it.
- arrrg 12y ago
  Apologies are very easy (if you actually are sorry). You just say specifically what you did wrong and apologise for that. (Ideally you then also say how you will avoid making the same mistake in the future.) What an apology basically says is that if you had a time machine you would travel back in time and do something differently. What you would do differently, however, is crucially important for whether an apology is meaningful or not. Are you sorry that you were found out? Or are you actually sorry for doing what you are criticised for? That issue is never tackled head-on in this post and that is a very valid (and not poisonous) reason to be unsatisfied with this non-apology apology. He is of course completely free to continue holding his bigoted views (and I certainly would never want him to lie about being sorry, that would be much worse than this apology), but as long as he only apologises for caused sorrow and not actually holding those views he should not expect to be excused from criticism.
- hapless 12y ago
  It's offensive to "apologize" when you do not actually regret your behavior. It rings false because it is false. It's a cynical attempt to manipulate the audience. Sometimes it is better to say nothing. This post should have remained focused on Eich's workplace policies and promises to staff.
slucidi 12y ago
How is that not saying he's sorry he hurt people? I don't understand what you are having a problem with.

thirsteh 12y ago

He is sorry like the NSA is sorry you found out what they've been doing. Brendan Eich doesn't just dislike gays getting married. He hates the concept so much he officially donated to prevent it from being possible. I'm sorry, but I don't sympathize with the argument that he's "entitled to his opinions," because it's more than that. Nevermind that he's now CEO of Mozilla. (I personally don't care if gays can get married in the eyes of a church or not; I care that gays are fundamentally unable to get the same benefits as other people.)

macu 12y ago
I haven't seen a single grain of evidence in support of the claim that Brendan Eich hates gay people. He said it himself, "the donation does not in itself constitute evidence of animosity." And I can stand behind him on that. I'm gay and I also find the cultural crusade for gay marriage objectionable. I more go along with the views of the Against Equality group. But since it appears that gay marriage is going to happen regardless, there's no sense resisting it now.
- smirksirlot 12y ago
  If he doesn't hate gay people, then why not just make his position on marriage clear? He can straight up say "I don't believe in marriage" or whatever.
  - MrZongle2 12y ago
    "If he's not a witch, why does he deny the Church's accusations so emphatically?"
- orthecreedence 12y ago
  I'd rather the state not recognize marriage whatsoever. Then you can get married to whoever or whatever in any church that will allow it, and that state washes its hands clean of any "side-taking." Instead, the state would offer civil unions to any two consenting people. Now if Mr. RightWing doesn't like your gay marriage, he doesn't have to recognize it, but the state will still issue your "union" without discrimination. The main issue I took with Prop 8 wasn't necessarily that it was discriminatory (although I don't like that either) but that it was taking away rights from a group of people by encoding it into the state's constitution...which is generally a document which codifies people's rights, not lack thereof.

bane 12y ago

"My ongoing commitment to our Community Participation Guidelines, our inclusive health benefits, our anti-discrimination policies, and the spirit that underlies all of these." "...and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain." Ouch, how can somebody hold two opposing thoughts in their head at once? That's basically a denouncement of his own personal efforts. At this point, the best thing he can do to level set things, is to make some equal and public donations to same-sex marriage causes. It sucks when your actions have consequences...especially when those consequences hurt other people. "At the same time, I don’t ask for trust free of context, or without a solid structure to support accountability. No leader or person who has a privileged position should. I want to be held accountable for what I do as CEO. " And that's exactly what's happening. I hope he keeps getting held accountable for participating in the oppression of a minority group until he takes substantive steps to make public amends.

quesera 12y ago
> Ouch, how can somebody hold two opposing thoughts in their head at once? The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. - F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Crack-Up", Esquire Magazine (February 1936) Unfortunately, one of the ideas in this case is deeply offensive. Hopefully this is an opportunity to reexamine that idea with a more inclusive mind.
gcp 12y ago
I hope he keeps getting held accountable for participating in the oppression of a minority group until he takes substantive steps to make public amends. Didn't he just do that, by promising contrary action rather than a cheap apology?
- bane 12y ago
  "by promising contrary action rather than a cheap apology?" We'll see. Promises are easily broken, especially when you don't think the subject of the promise is important.

quesera 12y ago

I think this is 95% satisfactory. It's unreasonable to demand that someone change their mind about something (and would you believe it if he claimed he had?), but it's imperative to be sure that his personal opinion will not bleed into his executive function. He knows he's outnumbered, and on the wrong side of history. But he recognizes that he can't change himself on demand. It's the best we can hope for in an honest person. Or, at least, it's the first step. Vigilance, however, is warranted.

harlanlewis 12y ago
Eich doesn't appear committed to his personal politics over simply getting through the immediate PR firestorm, and as a result the Mozilla organization may now do more to support LBGT communities than if they'd promoted someone who didn't provoke such a strong response. Combative and messy, but it might be what progress looks like.
- Tobu 12y ago
  The last he said about his personal politics was this: https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ Enough people have gotten in touch about this that hopefully he'll change his mind about marriage rights in society at large (today's post was still specifically about Mozilla's principles), but he will probably hold on to the fact that this topic is a private (by which people often mean religious) matter for a while longer.
mythz 12y ago
Agreed, if he instead claimed that he changed his beliefs as a result of public opinion, he'd have come across as either weak-minded or a liar. It's satisfactory as long as he doesn't abuse his position of power to impose or further his personal political/religious beliefs within Mozilla.
aestra 12y ago
>It's unreasonable to demand that someone change their mind about something (and would you believe it if he claimed he had?) It can happen. Take New York Senator Mark Grisanti as an example. He ran on the campaign against gay marriage. When the vote came up for the Marriage Equality Act, he studied the issue extensively and changed his mind. He voted "yes" on the bill. The bill passed despite needing a couple Republican votes "yes" in order to do so. Watch the speech he gave when voting. It is really inspiring. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEfN26t5yk8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEfN26t5yk8 "I would not respect myself if I didn't do the research, have an open mind, and make a decision, an informed decision, based on the information before me"

lawl 12y ago

I have commented on this issue before [0]. I've been thinking about this again. After reading this I think he still stands to his opinion, that he personally thinks gay marriage is wrong. Obviously he's an idiot, but I think even idiots are entitled to their opinion as long as it doesn't interfere with his work at mozilla. I think that is also what he's trying to say with his blog post. I think he made it pretty clear that he does not want this to interfere with his work at mozilla. So as long as he does not discriminate LGBT at work, I think he deserves a shot at it. You can't force him to change his opinion. I think that is more honest than an apology he doesn't mean. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7470134 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7470134

GuiA 12y ago
As a CEO, you live, breathe and sleep for the company. While the personal/professional division can be easily made for an employee far down on the org chart who does his job for 8 hours and then goes home, can the same be done for a top level executive, let alone the CEO?
- lawl 12y ago
  What do you expect from an answer from me on this? Obviously I'd say yes....
  - GuiA 12y ago
    I'm just trying to understand exactly where our reasoning diverges.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >As a CEO, you live, breathe and sleep for the company You'd be surprised. That's just a myth we have, to justify crazy salaries. In fact, there have been tons of CEOs with golden parachutes who could not give a flying duck for the company that hired them. Nokia's recent-ish management comes to mind.
- macu 12y ago
  This sort of question, in fact the entire uproar, presumes that Brendan Eich is a hateful bigoted person with an agenda, or at least that he has some kind of dangerous impulse we should worry about. Do you think his stomach turns when he's around gay people? I don't believe it for a moment. If anything he probably just feels afraid that someone's going to attack him and accuse him of bigotry. Homophobia and opposition to gay marriage are in my opinion completely different issues, even if they involve many of the same people. We can't automatically hold someone accountable for both.

jedanbik 12y ago

I'm happy he said something. He didn't have to.

MrZongle2 12y ago
Unfortunately, he did have to. Eich holds an opinion that, while apparently shared with the majority of Californian voters (as per Prop 8 results), is deeply unpopular with segments of the technical population. These are some of the folks who will help promote and test Mozilla's future releases. They are part of Mozilla's customer base. He had to apologize, because these days holding a politically incorrect opinion is unacceptable. And as demonstrated in this very thread, even his apology isn't enough for some.
- jkelsey 12y ago
  It wasn't even a apology. He's just highlighted Mozilla's stance on diversity and inclusion, which is good and deserves some credit. However, the facts about this situation remain the same: 1. He donated a large amount of money to a effort to remove a civil right from a certain subset of Californians based on nothing more than their sexual preference. 2. He has not signaled any regret for doing that. That is reprehensible. Mozilla is a wonderful organization, and I'll continue to use Firefox. I don't know if I'll be so willing to donate to the foundation as much anymore. The actions of one person shouldn't ruin all that Mozilla stands for. Regardless, Brendan Eich has tarnished his otherwise amazing reputation with donation to Prop 8 and his unwillingness to admit any wrongdoing. Mozilla's has also done the same to their own reputation by making him CEO.
- jedanbik 12y ago
  Why is this unfortunate? I don't understand your perspective.
  - MrZongle2 12y ago
    It is unfortunate because even though Mozilla has nothing specifically to do with LGBT issues and Eich has not publicly opined on the subject in the capacity of a Mozilla employee, he must now apologize for having an opinion. Let me repeat that: Eich is apologizing for his opinion. Not his actions as Mozilla CEO or even as an employee. The response from some quarters to punish his deviation from what some parties have declared "acceptable" is breathtaking. It has all the makings of Stalinesque purge with a Web 2.0 twist. Given the subject itself and how so recently it was considered "abnormal" and "unacceptable", I find the whole episode tragically ironic. I have no problem with gay marriage. But I am revulsed by the mob screaming for blood due to Eich's thoughtcrime on this matter.

lhnz 12y ago

Good. This is a promise to act differently when it comes to the company. Perhaps other in this community are right to point out that he's not actually apologised or gone back on his own personal views, but as much as I hate to say it, no amount of shouting and getting angry will get somebody with homophobic viewpoints to change their mind. Generally it takes new experiences involving very close friends or family to form a fresh world view. This is probably the best you could expect. I personally was expecting something far less personal and far more corporate from this but he is instead saying that he is making a personal commitment to equality with his actions and not just his words or HR policies. That's great.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

GuiA 12y ago

Bob becomes the CEO of a large entity, FizzBuzzCorp. In the past, FizzBuzzCorp has been respected for its integrity, respect of its employees, and inclusiveness. However, it turns out that in the past, Bob supported groups that claimed that men and women did not deserve the same rights as citizens; for example, that women should not be able to vote, or be on a comparable pay scale. Now appointed CEO, there is concern that Bob's views are out of line with the company's. Bob says that there is no reason to worry, that FizzBuzzCorp will keep paying its employees equally regardless of gender, giving them the same benefits, etc. as it has historically done. However, Bob does not once say that he regrets his past actions, that they were misinformed, or anything of the sort. Bob insists that FizzBuzzCorp will keep upholding its values; nonetheless, not once does Bob say or do anything which may indicate that his views may have changed. What do we make of Bob? Of FizzBuzzCorp?

macu 12y ago
I think we can recognize that Bob and FizzBuzzCorp are separate entities, and that Bob, if competent as a CEO, is also able to recognize and maintain the distinction.
- GuiA 12y ago
  The problem with this is that opinions have various degrees of influence on business decisions. If FizzBuzzCorp is in the business of building CMSs in PHP, and Bob believes that there is nothing unethical about the diamond business, those two things are far apart enough that you can reasonably trust Bob's opinions on the diamond trade to not influence his decisions as a leader. Even if you think the diamond business is the most awful thing ever, it's extremely unlikely that that Bob's views on the matter will influence the writing of PHP websites, and you can probably overlook it as an employee/customer/investor in FizzBuzzCorp (unless the diamond trade is something you feel really strongly about). However, every company deals with human beings by nature, and implicitly takes a role in social progress just by virtue of being a part of society. If Bob has certain beliefs about the nature of the rights that should be afforded to some humans but not others based on things like their gender (or race, or sexual orientation, or other), then the probability that those beliefs will interact with his decisions during his tenure as a leader is pretty high.

bluthru 12y ago

Would Mozilla appoint someone to CEO who donated $1000 towards a campaign on banning interracial marriage? Is being against same-sex marriage ok as a personal opinion just because we're in the transition period?

orthecreedence 12y ago
> Is being against same-sex marriage ok as a personal opinion just because we're in the transition period? Yes. The jury's out on gay marriage still. We all know what the verdict will be, and people who don't support it will be carried along kicking and screaming, but it's still ok socially to oppose gay marriage. That said, it was a stupid move on Mozilla's part. I'm sure he'll be great for the company, but now their masthead practically reads "We hate gays!"
- gcp 12y ago
  I'm totally fine with our masthead reading "We're understanding of dissenting opinion, even if we believe you're really and utterly wrong". We seem to like to do things the hard way with the press anyhow.
Confusion 12y ago
No, Mozilla would not appoint someone to CEO who donated $1000 towards a campaign on banning interracial marriage. However, not very long ago that was an acceptable, even common, personal opinion and people who publicly held it were appointed CEO without any qualms. So yes, being against same-sex marriage is still OK as a personal opinion and does not stand in the way of being appointed CEO. The facts are your answer. You are assuming that this change will be the same as that change. However, that is something history will show and that you cannot speed up by asking questions that only time will tell the answer to. This change is not yet the same as that change and consequently that change cannot yet be used as an argument for how to behave towards this change.
- zabraxias 12y ago
  Really interesting perspective. Made me think.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

sroerick 12y ago
I was in SF last week and visited the Mozilla office to see what it looked like. It looked like a locked door with a surveillance camera outside. I understand the need for security and privacy, but it was a little jarring to see it from Mozilla. I'm sure if I can contacted someone for a tour I'd have gotten a better response, but my perception of the organization has changed a little bit.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- pcwalton 12y ago
  Well, like all offices, there are valuables inside. I know that my team makes a very strong effort to be as inclusive as possible. For example in Rust meetups, which are held at the SF office (and are actually organized by Erick Tryzelaar, who isn't on staff), the whole front space is open.
- dblohm7 12y ago
  I don't think that's very fair. Every office that I've been to has an open reception area and community spaces that may be used by guests provided that they sign in. Mozilla is still a tech organization whose offices are filled with electronic devices that are vulnerable to theft. It wasn't long ago that somebody broke into the Toronto office and stole a bunch of stuff (they left the Windows 8 devices, though).
- nephyrin 12y ago
  This door? http://nextcity.org/images/made/images/daily/_resized/img_mozilla_space_640_640_90.jpg http://nextcity.org/images/made/images/daily/_resized/img_mo... I agree, it's outrageous that a door that opens onto the embarcadero be locked when the room is unoccupied, or that the building has a security camera near that door, which happens to be the corner of the building facing the street! Do they expect everyone to go to the main entrance to talk to someone or something?

wvenable 12y ago

> I know there are concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla. This isn't right. The concern is about Brendan's fostering equality in the world, not just at Mozilla. Getting promoted just brought this 'issue' back into the forefront again. He is also now the face of Mozilla and some people who are concerned about equality in the world now feel differently about Mozilla because of that.

DaleHarries1 12y ago

If he stays as CEO then Mozilla will remain a tainted company IMHO. The last thing an open source company wants to do is alienate vast swaths of their contributor base. And what happens when that base leaves? You're basically left with a bunch of conservative, white guys (Lets be brutally honest) who hate gay people and god knows what else. My view has always been that racists are homophobes and homophobes think women should know their place. In a tech world trying to be more inclusive of all these groups this will cause Mozilla huge damage. Talk about handing the keys of the castle to your competitors! I'm sure Facebook, Google et al will be itching to hire some good Mozilla devs!

gcp 12y ago
You can say a lot of things about Mozilla, but that it's a bunch of conservative white guys? That just shows...ignorance? For what it's worth some gay employees spoke out about how they feel Mozilla treats gay people, and it was pretty positive.

tiles 12y ago

Eich's personal stance on marriage now cannot have an impact on his role, or he will be at heavy odds with this blog post and the public opinion of many Mozilla works to include. He will be under scrutiny as long as he remains CEO. Admitting a sudden change of heart would have zero effect on Mozilla. I'm not sure what result people are expecting otherwise, but if the workplace environment he describes in this post is satisfactory, what more can be changed?

mef 12y ago
An explanation of why he is anti-gay marriage. That would speak more about his personal values and by extension how he will make decisions as CEO than his commitment to Mozilla's inclusiveness policy does. As a newly-minted CEO, his character is on trial.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  "As a newly-minted CEO, his character is on trial." LOL. We've now descended into complete ridiculousness.

jackmaney 12y ago

This is not even close to good enough. I will continue to refuse to use Firefox out of general principle.

MrZongle2 12y ago
So what is good enough? That Eich resign over his personal opinions? That he abandon his personal ethics for business reasons? That he demonstrate his good faith by paying a modern-day indulgence to an advocacy group? Or is Eich now irredeemable?
- jackmaney 12y ago
  Whether or not Eich is redeemable is unknown. In the meantime, I refuse to support any company that he leads. It's that simple.
nfoz 12y ago
What do you truly know about the political views of the individuals involved in producing the other web browsers?
- jackmaney 12y ago
  Far less than what I know about that of Eich.
davexunit 12y ago
How about Iceweasel or GNU Icecat? It's free software, man. You have your anger focused on the wrong things.
- jackmaney 12y ago
  [shrug] I guess I could use either of those, but Chrome suits me fine, thanks.
  - davexunit 12y ago

lukasm 12y ago

Maybe he supports gay guys and don't want them to go through marriage, divorce and all that shit.

macu 12y ago
That is very generous of you ;P

pavpanchekha 12y ago

Wait, wait, hold on. Folks, this man isn't a politician, he isn't a social crusader, he isn't using his position as a platform. At worst, he's rich. He hasn't taken the throne, or even government office; he's the CEO of a private corporation that makes web browsers of all things. Now, sure, he might be against gay marriage. And you might disagree, and have a variety of principles to back your position. But why do we demand perfection in our public figures? Would we have the same controversy if Brendan voted Tea Party (but only privately)? If he were against abortion? If he didn't believe NASA needed a bigger budget (or that it did, if you lean the other way)? Sure, gay marriage is good, people should support it, it is a valuable social cause. I can understand your upset if you work for Mozilla, except that Brendan has already stated several times that no policies at Mozilla would change due to his personal views. But can we at least hold that while wrong, being against gay rights does not immediately make you the world's most despicable human being? Or, if every opponent of gay rights is sub-human (a conceit that some anti-gay-right crusaders hold in reverse), what issues exactly are similary important? Must we raise a controversy every time a tech leader comes out pro-NSA? Anti-immigration-reform? Pro-university education? Anti-startup? Anti-basic-science? (Note that, just like Brendan's, these positions might have reasoned arguments; you wouldn't know if you're too busy pillorying whomever holds them.) I have a few Christian friends. They are not total idiots, or oblivious to reality; I do not suspect them of secretly trying to convert me. They are very smart folks, who do good work, who happen to be Christian. I know a guy who denies climate change. I don't trust his knowledge of climatology, but then again I mostly talk to him about math, where his thoughts on climate science are irrelevant. And he's likewise a smart guy, great to work with, industrious, careful, and a great friend. I don't demand perfect agreement in my friends; I won't demand it of Brendan.

MrZongle2 12y ago
Would we have the same controversy if Brendan voted Tea Party (but only privately)? If he were against abortion? If he didn't believe NASA needed a bigger budget (or that it did, if you lean the other way)? Yes. Yes. Yes. This is America in 2014. If somebody holds a politically incorrect position, they must be destroyed: their employer must be named, shamed, and pressured to fire that person. If that person runs a company, that company must be destroyed: it must be boycotted, attacked with FUD, and besmirched. It's not right, but that's apparently what our culture has descended to. Am I wrong? Many of the responses here on HN and elsewhere online about this topic over the last 24 hours indicate that I am not.

lotsofmangos 12y ago

If he doesn't fully explain his position on why he donated to that campaign, then he remains hard to trust. He seems to be refusing to state his full position on the reasons behind that donation, other than to ask people to take his word that his reasons are reasonable, while using the fact that people are being rude as a defense not to speak publicly on the subject, which isn't entirely reassuring. https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/

thescribe 12y ago
Given the response here, I think that just makes him a rational human.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  That's just the "No explanation is required because some people have been rude." line of argument I was commenting about though. Iterating it doesn't particularly convince me.

DanielStraight 12y ago

Brendan Eich has now publicly committed to... 1. Include LGBT individuals in making decisions regarding discrimination and inclusivity. 2. Continue health benefits for same-sex partners. 3. Uphold anti-discrimination policies. 4. Create new initiatives to reach out to those who feel marginalized. 5. Support an initialize for bringing under-represented people (including LGBT individuals) into tech. And apparently he is committing to all these things despite holding a personal belief that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples. I admit my perspective on this may be limited due to being a white, heterosexual male, but... Why is having Brendan Eich's personal approval more important than having his support? Why does it matter what he believes internally if all his external actions are supportive? We use products and services from numerous tech companies every day, never even asking how their CEOs feel about LGBT issues or what actions they take to be inclusive. But now people are upset because one of the few CEOs to make such a strong public statement of support for LGBT issues (I can't think of another one who has even made any statement at all) doesn't personally support homosexual marriages? It's bizarre. Why is silence (from other CEOs) better than a stated willingness to support people even if he disagrees with what they are doing personally?

ebiester 12y ago
It's not logical -- and none of it pretend it is. All I can say is that when one grows up having been physically, emotionally, verbally, and spiritually harassed for a greater part of one's life, these little things end up bringing up the whole ball of shit. It short circuits logic, but it's a common human trait. Some Jewish people still won't buy Volkswagon cars, for example, and I remember hearing WWII Veterans who wouldn't buy anything from Japan. Pain has a long, long memory.
- DanielStraight 12y ago
  This is an argument I can understand. Thank you.
m0a0t0 12y ago
Because he actively went out to limit peoples rights. Those who are silent on the matter are not actively harming LGBT people and I think it would be known if the companies were not inclusive. In the world of businesses (and even Mozilla) it's generally wise not to take people at face value and let their actions do their talking. So far the only action is a negative and so he is judged in the way he is. I would also note that he does not really offer an apology for his actions, only "sorrow at having caused pain" which sounds like the bare minimum he could get away with

ebbv 12y ago

This is all nice but I'm still not supporting Mozilla. Brendan's views are akin to him being against interracial marriage to me. Would we give him a pass if he said "We'll hire African Americans and extend benefits to them, I just personally think of them as sub-human."? Obviously not. Brendan needs to join the 21st century.

gcp 12y ago
Feel free to think Brendan as a shithead, just don't think of the other 900-plus people in Mozilla as shitheads unless Brendan starts doing totally unreasonable things and we go along with it. Thanks.

azinman2 12y ago

What's left unsaid is the reason why this was called into question at all -- his financial support of Prop 8 -- and why it shouldn't be an issue at Mozilla. Inheriting an existing culture of openness and maintaining its status quo is not progress nor a reversal of his position on gay marriage. If anything the omission of any reference to it simply shows that his own personal views haven't evolved at all -- he's just willing to put them at bay while at Mozilla (especially when people make a stink). While that itself is helpful to know, his inner thought process which drives any decision he makes hasn't been addressed. This reminds me of seeing at Google the results of an internal survey on LGBT issues. The responses from some engineers, particularly from Russia, were so shockingly hateful it was truly frightening. I'm not sure why engineers who should be logic driven can become so irrationally hateful towards others who are unlike themselves. Giving $1000 to prevent someone else from getting married is quite a statement on his value structures.

strongsauce 12y ago

I am very confused by the different signals the javascript community continues to send about this situation compared to others. On the one hand, people continually get shouted down for saying or doing things that are offensive or insensitive to minority groups (and rightly so), however a lot of the same people seem to give Eich a lot of slack and choose to consider this situation as not a big deal. I do not know the Eich, and I am not gay, so the only thing I can compare it to is as someone who is Asian. If I found out that the CEO of the company I work at was known to have donated to a proposition that didn't want Asians to have equal rights, or even simply, not be able to marry, I am not sure I could continue working there. Mozilla itself as an organization seems to be very supportive of everyone regardless of sexual orientation, race, or other preferences, so does that mean individually I am free to support legislation that will legalize inequality? I understand that some LGBT employees at Mozilla have written in support of Eich, but is that fair to only take in the opinion of one person as the opinion of the rest of the group? If someone said, "Look Jackie is Asian, and when I do my ching-chong squinty-eye impression while wearing a conical hat, they laugh and are OK with it" that would still not make the situation okay despite how Jackie feels about it. I guess I am confused, and would like to understand this situation. I'm not really looking for blood and seeking his resignation. It seems like in this post he is going to do what is right for the company and continue supporting their current policies. That part is great but why was he given a free pass before this post?

michaelwww 12y ago

All he had to say for context was "My religious beliefs guide me to hold that marriage is between one man and one woman." A lot of decent people believe that. I disagree and believe gay people should be able to marry as well, but I wouldn't expect people in Eich's group to hold that against me. It's a free country with freedom of religion and belief.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

DanBC 12y ago

As a private individual he donated $X to anti-gay causes. How much has he, as a Mozilla employee, spent on pro-gay causes? Releasing a pink Mozilla phone that sends Y% of profit to pro-gay causes might be a good move.

jbaudanza 12y ago

For comparison, this is Google's position on Prop 8: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-calif... The tech and open source community owes a lot to its LGBT contributors. When their rights are being threatened, we should be the first in line to offer support. That is why this situation is so upsetting to many of us.

asdfologist 12y ago

If he contributed $1000 to a campaign to bring back slavery, and then he declared that Mozilla won't tolerate racial discrimination, would that make everything OK?