Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Businesses Mozilla Politics Your Rights Online

Some Mozilla Employees Demand New CEO Step Down 824

_xeno_ (155264) writes "Mozilla recently named a new CEO, Brendan Eich, and as commentators in that article noted, there could be some backlash over his private contributions to political campaigns. Well, it turns out that they were correct, and despite a statement from Brendan Eich pledging to continue Mozilla's inclusiveness, some Mozilla employees are calling for him to step down. Should private beliefs be enough to prevent someone from heading a project they helped found?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Some Mozilla Employees Demand New CEO Step Down

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27, 2014 @05:39PM (#46596825)

    "Hey, there is this guy, he has been around for pretty much forever, contributed more than half the goddamn planet, but he donated for Prop 8, what was outlawed anyway, he must be the spawn of Satan! He must step back, stop existing, or we boycott our single biggest hope for a better web and anyone who works there and isn't Eric!"
    Those Ars commenters are batsh*t insane, mixing personal feelings and professional stuff. Also, gotta love the comments where he is compared to Hitler or the KKK. It isn't even a different different order of magnitude anymore...

  • Re:No (Score:5, Interesting)

    by machineghost ( 622031 ) on Thursday March 27, 2014 @05:48PM (#46596957)

    We've had blacklisting based on political associations before, and I thought we all agreed it's a bad thing?

    Yeah, we all agreed it's bad. Like remember when the world blacklisted apartheid South Africa and its supporters? That was terrible wasn't it?

  • by cold fjord ( 826450 ) on Thursday March 27, 2014 @06:12PM (#46597241)

    Do you have any examples of Mozilla's "highly intrusive" policies? Company by company might be fair, but not everyone everywhere without proof.

  • by cold fjord ( 826450 ) on Thursday March 27, 2014 @06:36PM (#46597551)

    They are conducting a media campaign to have the CEO removed one way or another. If they were just trying to convince him they would send an email. They are trying to inflame the public against him and bring political pressure, perhaps to influence the board of directors to remove him.

  • Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Thursday March 27, 2014 @09:33PM (#46599071) Homepage Journal

    I think it's because this issue in particular is equated with fundamental freedom

    Actually it's civil privilege. Fundamental freedom involves *not* having the State decide who may marry whom (as is the natural state of things). The next six oppressed groups in line aren't feeling the freedom quite yet.

    Was Eich bigoted or extremely libertarian in his opposition? Could be either. The trick with demanding a particular political position on an issue is knowing first whether a political solution is even feasible or desirable.

  • Re:Would we... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gig ( 78408 ) on Thursday March 27, 2014 @09:51PM (#46599159)

    If he was a KKK member, Mozilla would likely not have made him CEO. That is the discrepancy here. That is the mistake that Mozilla is being called out on.

    If the KKK in California had put up a proposition to ban so-called* interracial marriage and Brendan Eich gave thousands of dollars to it, and then it passed because of money that flooded in from the slave states, then Mozilla would not have made him CEO. Here, we have a situation that is even worse than that, because years later after much public suffering, after Prop 8 was struck down as unconstitutional, Brendan Eich *still* supports it. He makes no apologies for his support of the KKK or the actions he took to try and make some people less equal than others.

    So Mozilla is saying, some kinds of hatred are just OK with us. We give him a pass for his anti-homo actions. Mozilla says, “won't everybody please respect Brendan Eich's right to put triangles on the arms of all homos and single them out for special second-class citizen treatment?” No, he doesn't have a right to do that. And he doesn't have a right to be respected by the people he victimized with his actions. Mozilla gains Eich as CEO and loses a large part of its community in return. Action gets reaction.

    (* I say so-called interracial marriage because there is only one race — human race — and therefore all marriage is humanracial marriage. In related news: the earth is round, evolution can be seen under a microscope, environmental pollution damages your health, and it is the 21st century.)

  • Re:No (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Thursday March 27, 2014 @09:54PM (#46599181)

    Supporting prop 8 makes you a bigot. If the janitor is a bigot it's probably ok as long as he leaves his retarded bigotry at home. If he brings it to work, then his boss needs to be involved to discipline or fire him. It's more important to make sure that the top guy isn't a bigot, or stupid, or crazy, etc

  • by noh8rz10 ( 2716597 ) on Thursday March 27, 2014 @10:32PM (#46599425)

    who is this guy? what does he believe? why is it bad? who did he donate to? I have zero information. you call him a bigot buy whyy?

  • by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Friday March 28, 2014 @12:06AM (#46599847)

    However if those beliefs are based on their religion, then forcing that person to leave the company is in essence forcing the person to leave because of their religion.

    Generally, most people are able to keep their beliefs out of the workplace, even CEOs.

    Thing is, there were some non-bigoted reasons out there for being for prop 8. Though I do think many people would disagree and insist loudly that this is impossible. I voted against by the way, but I like everything I vote for I looked at arguments from both sides and read the text of the laws, etc, and ya many of theo official ballot arguments for were pretty stupid.

    For example, prop 8 restored what had already been voted on the past just with a bit stronger wording to get around a judicial ruling. There are people who are for more concerned about judicial activism (their words) than in discriminating against gays. Ie, they may think that gays can get civil unions and marriage may come about over time but having a judge overturn a proposition by the people will cause them to explode in righteous anger. There are others who were not bigoted against gays and who felt that civil unions were a good solution but who did not think that redefining the word "marriage" was the right way to go about it (I disagree with that view, but there are many who held it and I do not believe they were bigoted in those views). And finally there were others who just want to see gay marriage be on the ballot rather than be decided by a judge.

We gave you an atomic bomb, what do you want, mermaids? -- I. I. Rabi to the Atomic Energy Commission