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

Inclusiveness at Mozilla

brendaneich.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 196 posts

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#91

Post by dblohm7 »

sroerick wrote: post #45
[deleted] wrote: post #26

[deleted]

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.

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).

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#92

Post by coldtea »

lawl wrote: post #69
coldtea wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Well, nothing obvious about it. It's just a cultural preference. If you were born merely 30 years ago, or in another culture, you'd be laughed for even considering the idea of gay marriage. Make it 100 years ago and you would be considered a madman.…

Don't take it too literal. I was just voicing my disagreement :)

Yep, I tend to do that!

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#93

Post by mindcrime »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #73
pavpanchekha wrote: post #59

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…

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 co…

t's not right, but that's apparently what our culture has descended to.

I hope my startup one day becomes successful enough that I have to care about people calling me out in public for my political beliefs.

I'd love for the mob of whiney hipster-wannabe pseudo-leftist statist-hypocrite-idiots to try and "shame" me for saying that government is damage that should be routed around, and for saying that taxation is theft.

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.

Yes and no. I think you're more right than wrong, but it is important for all of us to be aware of the ways in which we create echo chambers around our own positions. "Online" encompasses a LOT of different kinds of thinking, but most of us (I believe) spend most of our online time in communities, and on sites, which are mostly populated with people who share a lot of our own beliefs. And we tend to assume that "The Internet" agrees with us, even when somebody with diametrically opposing views may feel exactly the same way.

IOW, don't mistake the "HN majority" or the "/r/politics majority" or the "/b/ majority", etc., as being representative of the real world.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#94

Post by Confusion »

nine_k wrote: post #50
lawl wrote: post #18

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 cle…

I personally suppose that seeing someone as an idiot because of difference in opinions is more debilitating than having an arbitrarily wrong opinion. World is not black and white, and has never been.

Funny you should say that, as you are interpreting the comment you are responding to in a decidedly black-and-white fashion. When someone says someone else 'is an idiot', that usually means: "he's an idiot concerning this issue, which is actually surprising, since he mostly holds sensible and defensible opinions". It's not either black-'someone is an idiot in every aspect' or white-'someone is awesome in every aspect'.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#95

Post by zabraxias »

Confusion wrote: post #75
bluthru wrote: post #25

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?

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…

Really interesting perspective. Made me think.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#96

Post by danudey »

pavpanchekha wrote: post #59

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…

Brendan went out of his way to donate a thousand dollars to prevent a group of people from sharing the same right as everyone else.

Allowing it would have harmed no one. Not him, not them, not anyone. There are no negative downsides, other than a subset of religious individuals who wish to impose their strictures onto all of society feeling less in control of their lives.

I have a hard time accepting, as a leader, someone who goes out of their way to donate to an anti-gay campaign whose aim is to do nothing other than deny the LGBT community something out of spite.

It's not his beliefs that are the issue; it's that he's trying to impose them on all of society.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#97

Post by strongsauce »

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?

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#98

Post by coldtea »

brown9-2 wrote: post #78
coldtea wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

And Mozilla employees, contributors, and users have the same exact right as a private citizen to be upset about Eich's personal beliefs on the matter. The "right to have your own opinion" extends to everyone involved - pulling this card out to defend his beliefs doesn't end any debate.

>And Mozilla employees, contributors, and users have the same exact right as a private citizen to be upset about Eich's personal beliefs on the matter.

They should have the exact same right in the exaxt same way: as "private citizens".

That is, not as Mozilla employees trying to oppose a CEO placement.

That they don't like his personal beliefs should in no way get in the way of working with him -- unless he brings those to the way the company operates.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#99

Post by biehl »

pavpanchekha wrote: post #59

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…

The CEO of Mozilla is the leader of a project that draws on goodwill of people for evangelism and support. Furthermore the whole philosophy of Free Software is based on the golden rule and doing social good - that is why there are high demands for the behavior and philosophy of Brendan.

And I think his statement is appropriate and encouraging.

Re: Inclusiveness at Mozilla

#100

Post by apendleton »

pavpanchekha wrote: post #59

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…

Again (as I said in the last thread), this issue differs from others because it could potentially have affected personnel policies that would fall under his purview as CEO. I think this statement puts those concerns to rest, though.
Post reply on HN