Mozilla CEO resigns because of Prop 8 donation in 2008

[OttoVonBismarck]

I also find it hypocritical the entire organization was more than happy to benefit from Eich's technical leadership (he founded Mozilla and lead it as CTO for I believe that entire time) but the moment he got a promotion the employees and leadership on the board were ready to turn against him. His donation has been known for years, I actually have followed this Eich noise on the tech sites I visit, and I actually remember years ago when Eich's donation was first discovered. It caused a minor ripple then, and immediately went away. If he's so objectionable he should have lost his job then, right? CTO may not be CEO, but it's a major leadership position, and he's been on Mozilla's board this whole time as well.

[Valmy]

Is donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

Is everybody who opposed gay marriage six years ago an intolerant asshole who should be opposed until forced to resign?  I could see it if he was some sort of activist who was notorious for this sort of thing but this seems like a misdemeanor that put him beyond the pale.

[Barrister]

I've mixed feelings. Is there any proof though that gay groups were agitating to make this happen? Seems like it was a Mozilla decision.

OKCupid was the big driver - urging people to boycott Firefox as a result.  Lots of twitter "activists".

Of course people are free to speak their mind, on Twitter and elsewhere, and of course Mozilla can hire and fire whomever they want.

Instead this is a question of whether people should have acted as they did - not whether they can or not.

[Sheilbh]

I'm very angry about this.

[Legbiter]

I support gay rights.

I fucking hate the Gutmenschen who got him fired.

[OttoVonBismarck]

OKCupid was the big driver - urging people to boycott Firefox as a result.  Lots of twitter "activists".

Of course people are free to speak their mind, on Twitter and elsewhere, and of course Mozilla can hire and fire whomever they want.

Instead this is a question of whether people should have acted as they did - not whether they can or not.

I've always taken a firm position that gays have no intrinsic constitutional right to marry, the whole idea is preposterous based on all norms of law and precedent. Individual States certainly can make it legal as they choose. I can't really think of much other that affects me less than gay marriage in the current world of politics so I've never cared whether a State chooses to have it or not have it, but it seems odd to me that we're at a point now where the moment public consensus changes just a tad bit (52% of California voters agreed with Eich in 2008)  anyone caught on the other side of it should be hounded from public life.

[garbon]

Is donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

What about running for POTUS while publicly saying you're against gay marriage? If people were willing to forgive Barry for that it seems odd they can't forgive a guy who never said a word about the issue and hasn't done anything in regard to the issue since 2008 (back when his position was shared publicly by the guy who went on to become President.)

People seem to forgive Obama for all sorts of things and it makes no sense to me.

[garbon]

Is donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

Is everybody who opposed gay marriage six years ago an intolerant asshole who should be opposed until forced to resign?  I could see it if he was some sort of activist who was notorious for this sort of thing but this seems like a misdemeanor that put him beyond the pale.

I don't know. I mean I'm not very hard-line but I think I will always reserve some level of shade for people I know to be opposed to gay marriage (which includes swathes of my family).

[garbon]

I've mixed feelings. Is there any proof though that gay groups were agitating to make this happen? Seems like it was a Mozilla decision.

OKCupid was the big driver - urging people to boycott Firefox as a result.  Lots of twitter "activists".

Of course people are free to speak their mind, on Twitter and elsewhere, and of course Mozilla can hire and fire whomever they want.

Instead this is a question of whether people should have acted as they did - not whether they can or not.

I guess I'm wondering who these people are. I don't think it was even a significant portion of gays but seems like some twitter activists as you say and OKC. That Mozilla decided image-wise to go along with that very small group of people...well it seems odd that spins into a conversation about how cruel we're being to people whom had intolerant moments in their past.  The "we" is a very small group.

[OttoVonBismarck]

This has been really big in tech circles. If you read Ars Technica, Wired, various Reddit techie subreddits or all kinds of other techie media/social media this has been really big. It also was big within Mozilla  itself among its young techie employees. So I don't think this was actually big in the traditional LGBT activist community because it was off their radar. Eich was primarily pushed out because of a reaction within his own industry, which makes sense, as Mozilla's board has to be most concerned about those stakeholders first and they were the ones riled up about it.

[Barrister]

Is donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

Is everybody who opposed gay marriage six years ago an intolerant asshole who should be opposed until forced to resign?  I could see it if he was some sort of activist who was notorious for this sort of thing but this seems like a misdemeanor that put him beyond the pale.

I don't know. I mean I'm not very hard-line but I think I will always reserve some level of shade for people I know to be opposed to gay marriage (which includes swathes of my family).

That's fair enough I suppose.  I will judge people for all sorts of political beliefs.

But this kind of public shaming for writing a cheque six years ago seems to be beyond the pale.

[garbon]

This has been really big in tech circles. If you read Ars Technica, Wired, various Reddit techie subreddits or all kinds of other techie media/social media this has been really big. It also was big within Mozilla  itself among its young techie employees. So I don't think this was actually big in the traditional LGBT activist community because it was off their radar. Eich was primarily pushed out because of a reaction within his own industry, which makes sense, as Mozilla's board has to be most concerned about those stakeholders first and they were the ones riled up about it.

You know that makes sense as the one article I had read was about whether it was possible to hold/espouse conservative views in Silicon Valley.

If anything like SF proper - definitely not, unless you want to be tarred and feathered.

[garbon]

Is donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

Is everybody who opposed gay marriage six years ago an intolerant asshole who should be opposed until forced to resign?  I could see it if he was some sort of activist who was notorious for this sort of thing but this seems like a misdemeanor that put him beyond the pale.

I don't know. I mean I'm not very hard-line but I think I will always reserve some level of shade for people I know to be opposed to gay marriage (which includes swathes of my family).

That's fair enough I suppose.  I will judge people for all sorts of political beliefs.

But this kind of public shaming for writing a cheque six years ago seems to be beyond the pale.

Most people didn't know about what he had done until now, no? His money then helped support a cause that revoked gay marriage for 5 years in California.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It's become much riskier to publicly participate in politics at all if you want to have a life in the public eye. Unless you want to be a politician, anyway. Both sides now imposing ideological purity, not just on candidates but they push for it in all aspects of life. Fundamentalist Christians won't shop at stores that they know support various causes (anything pro-Choice especially), and some even will only invest in ETFs/Mutual Funds that invest in "moral" companies (they're out there, marketed to these types.) The left is just as bad, boycotting any company that doesn't kow tow to various liberal causes. It's almost like people think we should have a segregated society where we only patronize business that agrees with us, only watch media or read writings of people we agree with and etc.

When Governor Scott Walker was subjected to the recall vote, Tea Party supporters painstakingly went through the signature lists and transcribed them into digital form. Then anyone who had tried to recall Walker (the recall vote failed), was given pay back whenever possible. Even local elected judges who are supposed to have non-partisan roles were successfully forced from office in conservative districts of Wisconsin entirely because they had signed the recall petition.

[Valmy]

It's become much riskier to publicly participate in politics at all if you want to have a life in the public eye. Unless you want to be a politician, anyway. Both sides now imposing ideological purity, not just on candidates but they push for it in all aspects of life. Fundamentalist Christians won't shop at stores that they know support various causes (anything pro-Choice especially), and some even will only invest in ETFs/Mutual Funds that invest in "moral" companies (they're out there, marketed to these types.) The left is just as bad, boycotting any company that doesn't kow tow to various liberal causes. It's almost like people think we should have a segregated society where we only patronize business that agrees with us, only watch media or read writings of people we agree with and etc.

When Governor Scott Walker was subjected to the recall vote, Tea Party supporters painstakingly went through the signature lists and transcribed them into digital form. Then anyone who had tried to recall Walker (the recall vote failed), was given pay back whenever possible. Even local elected judges who are supposed to have non-partisan roles were successfully forced from office in conservative districts of Wisconsin entirely because they had signed the recall petition.

I know.  The busybodies are really taking over.