91–100 of 194 posts
This is stupid, he might not be the most charismatic leaders but he is genuine leader for organization like Mozilla, and other causes what he supports in his free time, I personally don't care, as it is not relevant.
And you who downvote should go out of the closet, it is not everything about gay rights, there is life beyond that
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox has equal share with Chrome and most of the techies I know still use Firefox. Not having every private test URL of stuff you're working on sent to Google is reason enough. I do have several dev friends that use Chrome. They're usually mobile devs unconcerned with privacy (they have everything in Google).
Put up or shut up: Please provide evidence that Chrome sends private URLs to Google.
I see that Eich put up a small amount of money to support a bill against gay marriage. This says nothing about the way he treats people, or how he might serve as CEO. Is there something more, or is it really all about his political ideals?
Somehow, I doubt a CEO who is against same-sex marriage will be terribly friendly to LGBT employees.
More specifically, Brendan has publicly indicated that he intends to actively pursue equality throughout the organization[1].
So people seem to be calling him a liar with no evidence. And they're also bullying him solely based on his beliefs, rather than his actions.
[1]https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does a (relatively small) monetary donation really deserve to be called a "toxic political action"...?
I'm guessing you're not one of the people being discriminated against by Proposition 8. Am I right?
I see that Eich put up a small amount of money to support a bill against gay marriage. This says nothing about the way he treats people, or how he might serve as CEO. Is there something more, or is it really all about his political ideals?
Just the state that he doesn't believe in equality is enough for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are pretty mutually exclusive. I don't disagree per se, but do you apply this generally , disqualifying people with any expressed anti-egalitarian politics from leading a pro-egalitarian organization such as Mozilla? Would you apply a "no Randians" or "no libertarians" litmus test as much as a "no Christian fundamentalists" or "no social conservatives" test? In my opinion, the economic and social equality angl…
I agree that it can quickly become murky with certain things. As I said though, actions matter. Being a libertarian is a very different thing from donating $1000 to an anti-equal rights campaign. If economic and social equality angles are of fairly equal relevance, then Eich shouldn't be CEO, because him being CEO puts the economic angle as significantly more important than the social equality one.
If you mean that people should be able to think whatever thoughts they want without me conducting paparazzi-style investigations to find out what they think, sure: I'm not advocating a campaign to find everyone who owns a copy of F.A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom and ostracize them (in fact, I own one!). But how about donating $1000 to Rand Paul's campaign? I would consider that equally odious, and yet it is (unfortunately) not that uncommon in the tech community, even among fairly high-profile people with board positions. In my opinion, the right of people with congenital heart diseases to receive medical treatment is of a similar level of importance as the right of gay people to have their marriages recognized by the state—if anything, actually somewhat more urgent in its importance—but a certain sort of "yuppie liberalism", which I think exists more or less only in Silicon Valley, takes the opposite view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not really a litmus test. Mozilla is an organization that prides itself on openness and equality, on being inclusive as an organization and a culture. This is reflected in its products, in many different ways—all of them good, generally speaking. The CEO is the figurehead of a company or organization; they have to represent the company, establish its culture, define its vision, and so forth and so forth. Having…
As a conservative-ish person in tech, I'm glad I made the decision to hide my politics beginning a few years ago. You people are vicious. I'd love to have an open debate or conversation, but that doesn't seem to be your game. Our culture is in middle of making unprecedented changes to a core social institution that goes back into prehistory. It's going to be a messy process and some people are going to disagree. That…
I wouldn't let children drink alcohol. Should we ban gays from pubs? Children can't vote. Should we etc etc etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somehow, I doubt a CEO who is against same-sex marriage will be terribly friendly to LGBT employees.
A lot of people are against same sex marriage for various reasons but aren't necessarily against homosexuality or LGBT. More specifically, Brendan has publicly indicated that he intends to actively pursue equality throughout the organization[1]. So people seem to be calling him a liar with no evidence. And they're also bullying him solely based on his beliefs, rather than his actions. [1] https://brendaneich.com/2014…
Hmm, something's amiss. Archive.org's record of Mozilla's website says that Mozilla Corp only ever had 5 board members. The WSJ seems to imply they had 6. Assuming Moz's own website is accurate, Katharina Borchert only joined around the time Eich was appointed. Either way, the numbers don't quite add up. If there were only 5 board members, and only 2 of them wanted Eich, how did he get chosen? And even if Katherina w…
I don't know anything about Mozilla's structure, but in some corporations it's possible for a single board seat to have more than one vote (e.g., for board seats appointed by a holder of "Class F" (founder) or "original shares" versus other classes of stock). Edit: clarity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, Eich lives and breathes Mozilla and the mission, and is basically the perfect choice for CEO ... except for his political actions being so toxic to the brand that other nonprofits issue a press release to say they're boycotting Firefox over it: http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/victoria/vac-gmhc-to-boyco...
Does a (relatively small) monetary donation really deserve to be called a "toxic political action"...?