Mozilla Chief Executive Brendan Eich has stepped down, the company said on Thursday, after an online dating service urged a boycott of the company’s web browser because of a donation Eich made to opponents of gay marriage.
“We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act,” wrote Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker in a blog post. “We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry.”
Mozilla CEO resigns
“We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry.”
So, to be clear, they’re sorry that they weren’t faster to engage people over this. That’s great, Mozilla.
We shouldn’t get too excited over some donation he made years ago. What puzzles me more that this has come up now after a controversial nomination. Looks like dirty laundry…(http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2014/03/three-mozilla-board-members-resign-eich-appointmen.html)
Certainly, there’s the oddness of the supposed 3-3 vote.
But it’s also an expression of the fact that there are a lot of people out there who find people who are against basic civil rights objectionable.
Had he made a $1000 donation to the KKK, would you expect anything else?
Comparing a donation to a political process is not the same a to a criminal organization. Last time I checked gay marriage is not a civil right in the US and so what is the fuss.
Mozilla should have shown some backbone after electing Eich. Who want to be CEO at Mozilla after that? I guess they could elect some flipflop politician as their CEO now.
The right to marry is a civil right. That some states are still restricting it is an abuse of power.
the KKK isnt a criminal organization, it’s a social community of like-minded people with a political agenda — who happen to be awful racists and haters.
it’s pretty similar to the gay-haters, even if the gay-haters pretend their social & political agenda isnt based on hate & revulsion.
The fact that some states are restricting gay marriage is an abuse of power because the right to marry is a civil right, true. However, I don’t think it is wrong for someone to donate money to organizations that oppose gay marriage either and I see no reason for anyone to apologize for it.
By the way, I have always beloved that gay men and women should be able to marry, have children etc. I just don’t want to stifle anyone’s voice or opinions. Left or right we need to be allowed to speak and express ourselves without fear of losing our jobs or being bullied into it.
That’s right- punish the hateful thoughtcrimers, wherever ye shall find them! There’s not enough room in this civilization for opposing views on the definition of “marriage”!
Thanks for posting, Jim. I think Marco did an excellent job of explaining why this entire process has been, contrary to critical response,man excellent example of free speech: http://www.marco.org/2014/04/04/political-views
Free speech doesn’t mean consequence-free speech.
I’ll come out and defend your right to hate homosexuals til the death.
But after that, don’t expect me to want to associate with you in any way.
Dude- that Voltaire shit is based on a false premise. I don’t hate gays/homosexuals/LGBT’s- they’re friends, family, clients, colleagues and former employers. I just have a problem with folks who try to tell me or others how to think. Eich donated some money in support of a referendum- in support of what was (and still remains) a mainstream political position. Big fucking deal. Learn to tolerate and coexist with people regardless of differing political, ideological or religious views, or you’ll find yourself rationalizing away much more insidious forms of discrimination. (E.g. – hey! That guy’s a Jew! He bought a SodaStream, and Passover matzos baked in Jerusalem! Fire him!)
“I just have a problem with folks who try to tell me or others how to think”
Again, no one is telling anyone how to think. You are entitled to your opinion.
You are not entitled to assume that the simple fact that you have an opinion means that the rest of us have to respect it.
“Eich donated some money in support of a referendum- in support of what was (and still remains) a mainstream political position.”
A position which denies basic civil rights to a particular class of person. Segregation was very much within the mainstream of politics in the 1950s. Hell, slavery was perfectly fine for the Founding Fathers. Time’s change.
“Learn to tolerate and coexist with people….”
?! Say wha?!
Um, no one is asking you to “gay marry.” Any more than anyone is asking you to, oh, say, marry a woman of a different race. (Also illegal in many states until far too recently)
They’re demanding that you tolerate them. Is that really so much to ask? Why do you even care? Do you have so little to do in your off time that who’s fucking whom concerns you?
Or am I just wasting pixels?
It’s a hell of a crack in the façade of “we’re a meritocracy”.
I’m not fond of blacklisting. Punishing people for being political opponents reeks of bullying. Are people going to demand the removal of X executive because they supported candidate X in a prior election?
It wasn’t right when gays were bullied into the closet. It isn’t right for vengeful people to bully people for their political views.
And yes, as Marco Arment mentioned, there’s nothing illegal in what happened here. But just because something is legal, doesn’t make it right.
I believe in more people being directly involved in the political process. It’s acts of intimidation like this, that discourage people of all political beliefs to retreat from the public arena.
He wasn’t punished for being a political opponent. He was justifiably criticized for being an inappropriate choice to head up a company that professes to rely on community support. There’s a difference. It’s not bullying if you call out someone for having done things that make them less eligible for a particular job.
I have no problem with this guy having been CTO. But if he’s to be the figurehead of a project that champions egalitarian ideals, that’s another matter.
If it was just criticism, that’s fine. But if it was just criticism, why’d he have to leave his job?
The criticism is that the man wasn’t screened for his politics when he was hired.
Do you think that should be part of hiring people? I don’t. I don’t do it when I hire people. Good help is hard enough to find.
How’d you like it if you were asked to quit your job because of the political causes you support?
I find nothing “egalitarian” about THAT.
Pardon any harshness in this reply. The “politics of personal destruction” is something I do not like in any form, and a personal pet peeve of mine no matter wether it is aimed at either ally or opponent.
Then again, this is all “just criticism” on my part, no one is losing their job by it.
No, it shouldn’t be part of hiring people. But—again—it should be a consideration when a board of directors appoints a new leader of a company that relies upon community support.
This appointment was made in bad taste, just as Dropbox’s appointment of Condoleeza Rice to their board is in bad taste. She might be qualified to help the company expand internationally, but should a firm that has to address user privacy rely on a former government official who authorized warrantless wiretaps?