Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla Moving Forward

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 259 posts

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#161

Post by Yoric »

hackuser wrote: post #135
Yoric wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work at Mozilla and, really, it looks very much like an attack. Several calls to boycotts, several petitions asking for the resignation of our CEO, demonstrations, insults, death threats, ... Note that the situation is pretty symmetric: we now get from the conservatives what we got from the liberals two weeks ago.

I'm sure that can't feel good. Remember that you have over 500 million users and many more who know you. I suspect if you divide the number of supporters of boycotts, petitions, etc. by 500,000,000, you will get a very tiny number.

Thanks for the support :)

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#162

Post by wwweston »

danso wrote: post #67
wwweston wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not going to get into a debate about whether Prop 8 was right or wrong. Take a look at why you wrote that statement, and you start to understand why Eich didn't want to make it about that either. Also take a look at what he did say: https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ if we're going to talk about his ability to phrase statements. EDIT: downvoted into fairly negative territory for linking t…

Sure...but I'm not being considered for a position as CEO. Which means, among other things, that I'm not the person who makes the executive decisions that governs the company's policies and initiatives. Part of the privilege of being a peon is that I don't have to explain what I think because no one cares. Part of the problem of being CEO is that people do care ...heavy is the head that wears the crown, and such. I'v…

> Part of the problem of being CEO is that people do care...heavy is the head that wears the crown, and such.

Which is to say, you agree that someone might have a reason to avoid getting into discussing prop 8 itself, you agree that the magnification factor exists for a CEO (and therefore that Eich has a greater reason to avoid making the discussion about prop 8 than you do) -- you just think he also has a correspondingly greater need to address, because this is about governance. Right?

> Which means, among other things, that I'm not the person who makes the executive decisions that governs the company's policies and initiatives.

If the issue was Mozilla governance, it might be reasonable enough to wonder and perhaps even speculate about what Eich's support of prop8 meant for that in a vacuum of other information (though corresponding a donation to motivations is hardly a transparent act).

But there really wasn't a vacuum. Anyone who cared to see what an Eich-influenced Mozilla would be like doesn't have to speculate based on his prop 8 donation, they just need to look at the organization's history, given that he's been a significant influence since day 1. Looking at the internal support -- even from people who are clearly on the other side of prop8 from Eich -- also says something. And the statement I linked to gave the world very clear guidance about his intentions on that front and easy standards based on which to judge him.

In other words, the governance issues were pretty clearly addressed.

If this wasn't about governance of Mozilla, why does Eich have any more obligation than you do to provide a statment?

> I've read his statement, and his interviews. What in his statement contradicts my assertions?

That he doesn't know how to make a clear statement treating the relevant issues, or that his defenders treat him as if he's like that.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#163

Post by mbrutsch »

natural219 wrote: post #3

I'm still mad about the Brendan Eich thing. Like, mad . I'm totally fine with anybody pursuing whatever kind of political agenda they want, but at the moment you start to derail real progress, the moment you attack one of the best organizations who has literally been busting its ass for the last decade to change the world for no profit... Well, you declared war. I think this whole debacle should be a rallying cry tha…

The way I understand it, you're free to say what you please, and free to get called out for it. Having the internet harass your business is a distraction, regardless of how "right" it may be, and it's understandable that concessions mus be made to keep the business running smoothly, lest you endanger the livelihoods of everyone who works there.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#164

Post by LaGrange »

natural219 wrote: post #3

I'm still mad about the Brendan Eich thing. Like, mad . I'm totally fine with anybody pursuing whatever kind of political agenda they want, but at the moment you start to derail real progress, the moment you attack one of the best organizations who has literally been busting its ass for the last decade to change the world for no profit... Well, you declared war. I think this whole debacle should be a rallying cry tha…

"I'm totally fine with anybody pursuing whatever kind of political agenda they want, but at the moment you start to derail real progress,"

Exactly why Eich had to go.

"Well, you declared war."

Yes, the right wingers did.

"we're not going to accept this kind of bullying anymore."

Exactly why Eich had to go.

"It's time to start sticking up for ourselves."

Said people bullied by people like Eich, and stuck up for themselves.

Yes, I do think that LGBT rights are far more important than Mozilla.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#165

Post by invalidOrTaken »

msbarnett wrote: post #137
natural219 wrote: post #3

I'm still mad about the Brendan Eich thing. Like, mad . I'm totally fine with anybody pursuing whatever kind of political agenda they want, but at the moment you start to derail real progress, the moment you attack one of the best organizations who has literally been busting its ass for the last decade to change the world for no profit... Well, you declared war. I think this whole debacle should be a rallying cry tha…

To crib a very old phrase: I cannot rightly apprehend the confusion of ideas that would lead one to believe that it was ok for Brandon Eich to exercise his Freedom of Speech to support an attempt to relegate many mozillans and other Californians to second-class citizenship, but that it was not ok for others to exercise their Freedom of Speech to express their feelings about Eich and his suitableness as a public-facin…

>...to express their feelings about Eich and his suitableness as a public-facing representative of Mozilla.

But who made him "unsuitable?" Was Eich trumpeting his donations?

This whole thing has a "Answer me when I talk to you, boy! ----> Don't talk back to me, boy!" feel to it.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#166

Post by zobzu »

macrael wrote: post #45
natural219 wrote: post #3

I'm still mad about the Brendan Eich thing. Like, mad . I'm totally fine with anybody pursuing whatever kind of political agenda they want, but at the moment you start to derail real progress, the moment you attack one of the best organizations who has literally been busting its ass for the last decade to change the world for no profit... Well, you declared war. I think this whole debacle should be a rallying cry tha…

I actually really liked Marco Arment's take on this. http://www.marco.org/2014/04/04/political-views As time marches forward our society's tolerance for certain viewpoints has changed. This is a good thing.

Or.. this is a bad thing.

It goes totally both ways. What if tolerance for your viewpoint is lower? You're not longer allowed to have an opinion not shared by the majority?

Not sure how that's a good thing at all.

Imagine you are 100 years ago and your viewpoint is "gay marriage should be allowed"? in fact, back then, some people would probably be killed for thinking that. The vast majority of the collective conscientiousness certainly thought this was wrong.

And look where we are today.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#167

Post by coldtea »

I'm against what happened to Brendan Eich too -- for the reasons it happened. His personals opinions and political ideas, even if he was a card-carrying NRA member slash confederate flag bearering bigot, should be his own.

But (and I'm only half kidding) I'm actually in favor of sacking him for his incompetence, for so many years, to bring bloody ES6 to a final standard and into our browsers.

When HTML5 progressed so fast in so few years, and things like CSS Animations, Canvas, WebGL, etc also moved on, heck, even when IE picked up steam, the glacial pace of Javascript looks really unacepptable, and a throwback to the bad old days of W3C dragging its feet.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#168

Post by ruggeri »

I like how the board continues to take no responsibility for the situation they created. Right or wrong that Eich was fired, this was a foreseeable event; Eich's prior contribution was well-known.

This whole thing really doesn't make me feel good about Mitchell Baker or Reid Hoffman.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#169

Post by wonderzombie »

coldtea wrote: post #153
nostromo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And where do you draw the line? Are you going to defend people that oppose Women's Suffrage too? What about slavery supporters? These were just political opinions once too. But today you'll find that they get you fired as CEO. And for good reason: blacks and women (and gays) are your customers and employees and business partners.

> Are you going to defend people that oppose Women's Suffrage too? What about slavery supporters? These were just political opinions once too. Still are. And a lover of democracy and freedom should defend (not to be conflated with "advocate for") all of these people. They are entitles to their opinions, they are entitled to have their opinions battle other opinions in the court of public opinion, and they are entitle…

they are entitled not to lose their jobs or be beaten etc over them

These things are not at all the same. And in this case, we're talking about a CEO, the public face of a company, not an otherwise private citizen.

For, those that believe otherwise, I'd say that their opinoon means that people who talked against slavery in 1840 and were fired, ostracized from their community or beaten up were also living in a "free speach" environment.

Should I put words in your mouth, about how we'd still be living with Jim Crow if you had your way? "Let's not offend anyone who's racist, lest they feel like their rights to bigotry are being undermined!" What I just wrote and what you wrote above are not productive.

It's also pretty rich to compare abolitionists -- people campaigning for an expansion of human rights -- to someone who did the exact opposite.

Anyway, you're essentially arguing that free speech means freedom from consequences, and it just doesn't. Free speech is not absolute, as has been demonstrated time and again.

You can't insult your boss to their face and expect to get away with it b/c free speech. Likewise you can't try to deny an entire class of people their rights and expect zero consequences b/c free speech. It's never worked that way.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#170

Post by izacus »

wonderzombie wrote: post #154
finder83 wrote: post #123

I'm still rather disappointed in Mozilla's handling of the issue. I've since gone back to using Chrome, and away from thunderbird as well. Free speech is important to me; more important even than using and supporting open source software, which is pretty important to me. Someone's personal life, and their professional life, should be able to be kept separate, and the fact that they dragged out his political support o…

Whose free speech was violated? Free speech doesn't mean the freedom from consequences or criticism. It means the exact opposite! He's free to speak as he likes and donate as he likes, and everyone else is free to exercise their own rights to free speech. That's how it freaking works. There's no right to be a CEO, either. I wouldn't dispute a racist's right to speak as they like, but free speech doesn't mean turning…

Erm no... if you have to be afraid for your job, your career prospects, your house or your family then your have NO free speech, no matter what some paper somewhere says.

Economic pressure was used to great success in (socialistic) countries like mine to curtail free speech (even though there was a "free speech" law). And it looked exactly like this - if you had an unpopular opinion, you'd just be marked as "unfit for leadership position", "unfit for advancement", "we cannot have someone going to church as our CEO", your children would get scholarship denied, etc.

You know... consequences. The definition of free speech is the ability to voice political opinion without fear. Haven't you learned anything from cold war?

Post reply on HN