UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

That's not the question. The question is - would you think that company that fired you did right by you? If not, then you can understand how people feel Mozilla didn't do right by Eich.

> It would also mean the Mozilla board was truly and utterly incompetent; because this was an extremely predictable result

No it wasn't. A lot of people held view similar to Eich's (including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at certain times, btw) and many donated to Prop 8. If you not aware of it, Prop 8 actuall passed. Which means majority of California voters supported it. Not all of them were target of personal destruction hate campaigns. The hatemongers chose Eich to target, but they could choose somebody else out of 7 million people that voted "yes".

> They already knew of Eich's donation.

If they did, that would be highly unusual and irregular to investigate private life of a person. I would certainly be alarmed if my employer would scrutinize my private donations. WTF they are doing asking how I spend my money? But what if they did? Certainly a lot of people donate to a lot of causes, and not every one of them is targeted by hate campaigns.

> And anyone with a functioning brain would have realized that this would become a much bigger issue when he was promoted to CEO.

Nope. Name me organizations that CEO's of Fortune 100 companies donated to, without googling. You can't. Because you don't know. Because nobody knows. Because nobody cares, until it becomes target of a campaign. Now you are posing as if you could have predicted it, you could not.

> We do, however, share common ground that nobody should be fired for their personal beliefs

Yet Eich was. That's the

> Say there were a company run by a neo-nazi grandmaster wizard of the KKK

But there wasn't. There was a US Senator who was in the KKK (Robert Byrd) but most his comrades seem to be completely fine with it. Eich wasn't in the KKK and did not intend to commit anything. Why engage in ludicrous assumptions that we all know are false?

> The critics who called for his job were wrong to do so.

And yet they got what they wanted. And Mozilla aided and abetted.

> Prove it.

The proof is in the pudding. Mozilla never did anything to support Eich, it were Mozilla employees who initiated the personal destruction campaign, board was on the record offering him "another role" but never offered to stand up for him, and so on. Of course, I was not a fly on the wall when the talk between Eich and board members happened, so I can't give you the money quote. But I see the gist of the situation to be pretty clear and so do many others.

So what? I might have a problem with my boss' watch or suit or the shows he likes or the newspapers she reads. Who cares? I'm not marrying him/her, I'm working with him/her. It's irrelevant for the work.

There's no single piece of evidence Eich did in any way impede, discriminate against, was hostile to or in any other way hurt any gay - or straight, for that matter - employee, while working for Mozilla. If there were a shred of evidence, it would be unearthed and paraded by now. It wasn't. Conclusion is it doesn't exist. That's what I am talking about "no single instance". I don't claim nobody ever disagreed with him on anything, because a) that's impossible and b) nobody cares, disagreement is completely normal.

> but I could imagine it might make them uncomfortable,

The idea that everybody should behave in a way that makes absolutely everybody else comfortable and never do anything that could cause slightest discomfort to anybody is one of the most stupid ideas that ever come out of American college campuses. Fortunately, even its proponents don't actually believe in it - they are completely fine causing their opponents maximum discomfort. It's only their own comfort that they aim to protect. Which is fine - but I see no reason why their comfort is more important than everybody else.

Of course, some people - including ones working for Mozilla - may hate Eich's views. So what? If you have views, somebody would eventually hate them. And some would love them. And most wouldn't care.

> Mozilla didn't fire him

Technically, no. Effectively, yes. There are more ways to fire a person than yell "You're FIRED!!!!" to his face. This "his own volition" is a pile of bull, just like saying "oh, your honor, this guy handed his wallet to me on his own volition, and the gun in my hand has really nothing to do with the case, let's forget about it. The guy even said "please take my wallet and let me go!" which I obliged to do. So I don't see what all the fuss is about, it's clearly a voluntary transaction."

> but usually when I boycott something it's for real stuff, not stuff I just made up in my head.

I remain grateful to you for this short, but instructive story about your life. It was very educational, truly a people interest story.

> the only publicly available evidence is that your resignation was voluntary. Voluntary implies optional. Optional implies you could stay. There's no leap of logic here.

You're wrong: "voluntary" does not imply "optional" in any scenario where the possible outcomes are not mutually exclusive and exhaustive. It's as simple as that. The old saw about the sergeant calling for volunteers and saying if you don't put your hand up, then you'll be "volunteered", comes to mind.

> Well there you go! There's our answer. You weren't fired, you resigned. Right from the man himself :D

I suggest you write less and read more. I've said I resigned since I in fact did resign on 3 April 2014, on my blog, in a statement to Mozilla employees, and on HN every N months, including on this very HN page today. If you didn't read any of those statements, then you simply weren't paying attention. If you read and ignored, bad on you. Either way, you've used up my patience, and probably many others'.

This is not what you asked, though. You asked if something were voluntary (and assumed optional meaning disjoint outcomes for the given action). You used "had zero control". Again, the range of possibilities is bigger than "zero control" vs. "gun to head".

Enough with the false dilemmas, already!

If you are serious about talking 1:1, DM me on Twitter.