221–230 of 341 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eich didn't engage in advocacy as an executive, he did so as a private citizen.
He was being paid by Mozilla, and that money then ended up in the hands of people who weaponized that money against values that the people who financed that salary held. If people can't even vote with their wallets anymore, then we are creating a situation of moral hazard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By applying your explanation it could be that this whole situation is a power grab from people who want to take over the project. Does that make sense?
So? If the software they develop is superior, use it. If not, don't. If you're so concerned about "who has power", either do a better job or learn to live with the tools they give you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've started to mentally replace the words "inclusion and diversity" with "conformity" on certain places on the net.
The key is "tolerance" and "inclusion". Those are, of course, superior to intolerance and exclusion. To have tolerance, you cannot tolerate intolerance. It is maybe illogical, but necessary.
In the same line, Brendan Eich. I completely disagree with his views on marriage of homosexuals, but disagree that it led him to have to quit his position at Mozilla Foundation.
Eich was CEO, though. It's a special position in any organization. The board can ask you to leave at any time if you seem to be a liability, and the mere optics of a PR issue can be enough. That's why CEOs often have such generous compensation packages in the event of involuntary termination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there are people who believe McCarthy was wrong only because he picked the wrong targets. "Actually doing damage" is a fairly good discriminator, imho.
C.S. Lewis: "One man said to me, 'Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?' But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did -- if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My question is: Who gets to define whats controversial? Everyone has an agenda. Seems to be that whoever is best at getting people outraged gets to control them.
> Who gets to define whats controversial? I didn't make it very clear, that was exactly my point. Any view will be controversial to _someone_ regardless of the view. Which is why I posit that it is impossible to have a community leader posses non-controversial views. Unless of course the community is an echo-chamber, rejecting all who do not assimilate.
A lot of people are taking either stance: that a person's beliefs squarely should or should not affect their involvement in the project. However - the third stance is that one needs to assess the material effect their beliefs may have on their day-to-day involvement in that project. In an industry with serious, systemic issues with gender balance, is it not reasonable to suggest a person promoting "Gorean philosophy"…
I know I'm "straw-maning" a little but why would it be any different for strongly religious people in Jewish, Christian, or Muslim community? Do you think they shouldn't put in charge of anything because their book might say bad things about gays or women, or non believers? Why this belief (Gor) and not the mainstream ones?
Was he "fired" because he acted on his beliefs? inside the Drupal community? toward another member of the Drupal community? Or merely because he had an opinion he never disclosed to a collaborator and someone who obviously didn't like him, went to great length to find dirt or an excuse to kick him out of the Drupal community?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is where professionalism is important. Firmly separating your personal life and your professional life. That said, there's a huge gap between a religion a person is imparted with as a child, and philosophy they chose as an adult and have jumped into with both feet. Many people come from backgrounds with bigoted ideas like that, but they don't colour their daily lives with it because they're not actively married…
I don't think you get it. It doesn't matter what some guy posts on some message board (unless it's a threat, an incitement of violence, or something along those lines). It doesn't matter if he says he believes in "Gorean philosophy," whatever the hell that is. What matters are his actions. If he's treating women disrespectfully then, by all means, throw him out. But he's allowed to believe whatever the hell he wants,…
I also wonder how the hell some people think minds are to be changed, if the way they want to deal with them is quarantine. Most of the time, you need have some mutual knowledge and respect between two parties for one to really reach the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could have spared us the downvote bait but I do agree that this weird new "progressive orthodoxy" is worrying, and that's coming from a pretty hardcore liberal feminist atheist leftist globalist whateverist myself. I've worked with pretty strict christians and muslims in the past without issue. As long as it remains in the private sphere I don't see why anybody would have issue with that. It's also interesting to…
The whole keep-public-and-private-life-separate principle can itself be problematic. That is, it's not always clear what that even means. If it's the same as "never, ever do/say something offensive to current-day 'progressives'" , then we have a problem. Speaking as a Christian, I actively seek to more deeply integrate my beliefs into every aspect of my existence: how I do my work and fulfill my responsibilities, how…
I've worked with a catholic guy who told me he prostested the same-sex marriage law in france. I completely disagree with his position but we just stopped the discussion at this point and we kept working together just fine. I would do the same if we worked together, probably.
Now if you kept bringing it up or even wear anti-abortion shirts or stuff like that then yeah, I might ask you to tone it down. But other than that it's really not my problem. The key element is respect I think. I respect you, you respect me and everybody's a happy bunny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CEOs serve at will. Their job duties include being an emissary to the industry, and leading the company's reputation. I say what happened to Garfield was wrong, but agree that the Mozilla board made the right decision on Eich, who could not effectively carry out his general duties given the PR liability he became - not of his own making even. They didn't say he couldn't be a part of the org. as a lead software archit…
To me, the message was "Mozilla is about promoting trendy idea", rather than openness. If we cannot support and debate "wrong" ideas, then we're not very open in my opinion.