↵

Brendan Eich steps down as CEO of Mozilla(blog.mozilla.org)

almost 9 years ago from John McDowall, Freelance Ruby & Javascripté

  • Zach ⑊, almost 9 years ago

    I feel like that's sensationalizing the issue a bit. Why not let his professional history speak for itself? Why let his personal political history dictate the public opinion of him and what he can do for the company as a business and technical leader? This isn't politics.

    I get as CEO of a large company, his beliefs and opinions can be scrutinized. But this to me is more an example of an internet lynch mob than anything else: digging up obscure personal history that his professional history already proves has no bearing on his public role.

    People seem to forget that the person they want to call a bigot is the same person that co-founded Mozilla in the first place. As a co-founder (and CTO), he's already had an impact on Mozilla, and is undoubtedly one of the main people who have shaped what Mozilla is and stands for today.

    To that end, I think he made the mature decision to step down; which if anything proves what a good CEO he could have been. He put the company's needs above his own ambitions and truly acknowledged that Mozilla's values where too important to be discredited by his own. Which is exactly what everyone wanted him to do in the first place.

    2 points
    • Rob GrantRob Grant, almost 9 years ago

      His "personal political history" is public. He made a large donation—not anonymously, as he could have chosen to do—but in his own name. That's why it dictates his suitability as the public face of a company that claims inclusiveness as one of its aims. Whether or not he co-founded the company, his public actions, backed by his considerable wealth, are at odds with this.

      Also, please take a moment to consider where the phrase "lynch mob" comes from and whether it appropriately describes the response to a rich white executive who acts public against the interest of civil rights and social justice.

      0 points
      • Zach ⑊, almost 9 years ago (edited almost 9 years ago )

        but in his own name.

        Exactly. He made the donation as an individual not as Mozilla the company. Would you rather him do it anonymously? Censor his personal beliefs, just to prevent stigmatism? How would you feel if someone asked you to do that?

        If the problem is him doing it "publicly" vs "anonymously" then you're basically denying him his right to freedom of speech. If the problem is him donating at all, then you are ostracizing him because of a cause he supports. It's the exact same as someone being stigmatized for having donated in support of Prop 8 (or another similar cause).

        I feel like if this is looked at from a rational standpoint, his contributions to the internet, technology, etc far surpass those of most people, and outweigh the implications of his donation. There a lot of LGBT people who make a good living working for an open, inclusive company he helped start, and many more who make a living using his technology.

        I don't think there's anything "appropriate" about any kind of response that jumps to conclusions before objectively studying facts; that jumps to justice before allowing a real case to be made.

        1 point
        • Rob GrantRob Grant, almost 9 years ago

          This doesn't have anything to do with censorship or freedom of speech. Those terms apply to the abridgement of speech by the government, not to criticism from other public individuals.

          And yes, I would ostracize him for donating at all, even in spite of his contributions, because social justice is more important than technology. We can make the same advancements and those LGBT people can make a good living without people like Brendan Eich.

          2 points