I think that it's a shame that Eich had to resign. And I say this as someone who is very happy to see the winds changing in the US (and elsewhere), and who thinks that it's a good thing that gay marriage is becoming the norm and accepted law.
Mozilla is a non-profit. It's normal and expected for a non-profit to have officers and directors who agree with the stance of the non-profit. I would expect the head of a vegetarian organization to be a vegetarian. I would expect the member of a religious organization to be an observant member of that religion. And I would expect that the head of a labor union patronize union shops more than non-union ones.
So if Eich had taken a public stand against open-source software, or against Web standards, then it would be totally and utterly reasonable for him to resign, or to be forced out.
But Eich didn't take a stand against things that are at the core of Mozilla's mission. Rather, he had a personal opinion -- one which I don't share -- that used to be mainstream, and is increasingly seen as out of the mainstream, at least in large portions of the US and many other liberal democracies.
I think that it's unfair, and even a bit dangerous, for him to be forced out because of a personal political opinion.
If the next head of Mozilla gets up and says that he thinks it's OK for women to have abortions, would it be reasonable for them to be forced out? After all, there are many millions of people who feel that abortion is murder. (I don't concur with this opinion, but I know that it exists.)
If the next head of Mozilla donates money to anti-Obamacare ads, saying that things should go back to the way they were a few years ago, you could make a pretty good argument in favor of saying that this opinion will effectively condemn many people to death, or perhaps crippling poverty.
I don't think that we want this to happen. We don't want CEOs to be ousted because they have political opinions which reflect a minority.
I've often engaged in political discussions and debates with clients, some of whom hold opinions that I find completely and utterly wrong-headed, and perhaps even dangerous. But I'm not going to stop working with them because they hold different opinions. Rather, I'm going to be professional and work with them -- and perhaps even continue to debate them, so that they'll see my side of the argument.
Eich believes that gay marriage is wrong. I believe that he's wrong about that, and history is increasingly against his opinion. But his opinion doesn't have to do with Mozilla's mission.
By capitulating to public opinion over Eich's personal politics, Mozilla has opened Pandora's box. I worry that people who want to become the heads of major companies and organizations will keep their opinions and donations to themselves, for fear of eventually being condemned for those opinions. And that can only be bad for democracy and openness.
Amen to that. I think it's a real shame, too. I'm really pissed about it in the sense that here we are in an era where you are not allowed to have your opinions on anything anymore.
You are anti-gay ? You're a homophobic biggot and you should die. That's the gist of the message this sends. What if he is homophobic ? Who cares and what does that have anything to do with Mozilla ?
People demanding his head with the argument that it's intolerable not to tolerate difference don't know the disservice they did to their movements, because after all, they were intolerant for his difference too.
Now, you are not allowed to be "anti-gay". You are not even allowed not to be "pro-gay". You're not pro-gay ? What an ignorant biggot.
You're not even allowed to be without an opinion and not give a fuck about what people do with their bodies. Nooo ! You have to agree, or else you're homophobic.
Is this freedom of expression ? Is this the liberty these people are calling for ?
And this climate pushes you to say things like what you said, as a disclaimer, that you have gay friends, that you're not against it. It tells you a lot about the violence of their opinion.
What did he do that was illegal ? There was a project that some people supported and some were against. The pro-gay marriage lobbied and the anti-gay lobbied, or don't they have that right ?
Pro-gay donated money, too, and shook hands, and pulled strings, etc.
This is akin to (an online debate isn't one until Hitler is brought up) ban Mein Kampf under the argument that Hitler did what he did. What if I fucking want to read it ? Am I a Nazi for that ? What if I like his paintings ? Are we not allowed to think on our own, or are people shareholders of our very own, deepest beliefs ?
It's sad.
That's also like that Abercrombie and Fitch CEO who was attacked for what he did and say. What if I'm the CEO of a clothes company and I don't fat people to wear my shoes ? What the do you care ! Don't buy my clothes and case closed ! And the only reason you'd be pissed off is if you were fat, in which case you wouldn't be able to buy the frigging clothes in the first place, and you wouldn't buy them if they issued fat sized clothes anyway, so why the fuss.
What? No one is talking about any restrictions of free speech. Nor any statements you've mentioned.
You're allowed to take any of those stances. Equally as you're allowed to bitch on the internet regarding the fact that he paid to revoke the rights of others. (And yes, they were deemed "constitutional rights" before being revoked.)
Unfortunately for Eich, his opinions currently seem to be on the wrong side of history.
It is fairly simple -- you can be on the wrong side of an issue, that is fine. But, if you want to survive once public opinions shifts, you gotta shift too. Lots of politicians where against desegregation, when it was an "issue"... but then public opinion swayed clearly to one side and they had the political sense and expediency to change their (public) views.
Lots of really horrible racist, sexist things used to just be "opinions" (still are really) -- but now they are just considered by the masses unacceptable.
Eich was a victim of his own stubbornness and honesty. Could have defused the entire situation with a simple lie: "I changed my mind on that issue".
I think it's sad that we've gotten to the point where we're telling people who remained consistent over time to "be more like the politicians, and just lie to suit the masses." It seems like we'd be complaining about that in a different post.
I'm not sure if being forced out is not the right option here.
For me there is a clear (somewhat) difference between a 'personal political opinion' and a personal opinion that directly touches human rights issues.
Taking it to a more extreme case just to illustrate. Would it be OK for a CEO to be forced out if he/she had clear racist opinions? I personally think so.
Mozilla is a non-profit. It's normal and expected for a non-profit to have officers and directors who agree with the stance of the non-profit. I would expect the head of a vegetarian organization to be a vegetarian. I would expect the member of a religious organization to be an observant member of that religion. And I would expect that the head of a labor union patronize union shops more than non-union ones.
So if Eich had taken a public stand against open-source software, or against Web standards, then it would be totally and utterly reasonable for him to resign, or to be forced out.
But Eich didn't take a stand against things that are at the core of Mozilla's mission. Rather, he had a personal opinion -- one which I don't share -- that used to be mainstream, and is increasingly seen as out of the mainstream, at least in large portions of the US and many other liberal democracies.
I think that it's unfair, and even a bit dangerous, for him to be forced out because of a personal political opinion.
If the next head of Mozilla gets up and says that he thinks it's OK for women to have abortions, would it be reasonable for them to be forced out? After all, there are many millions of people who feel that abortion is murder. (I don't concur with this opinion, but I know that it exists.)
If the next head of Mozilla donates money to anti-Obamacare ads, saying that things should go back to the way they were a few years ago, you could make a pretty good argument in favor of saying that this opinion will effectively condemn many people to death, or perhaps crippling poverty.
I don't think that we want this to happen. We don't want CEOs to be ousted because they have political opinions which reflect a minority.
I've often engaged in political discussions and debates with clients, some of whom hold opinions that I find completely and utterly wrong-headed, and perhaps even dangerous. But I'm not going to stop working with them because they hold different opinions. Rather, I'm going to be professional and work with them -- and perhaps even continue to debate them, so that they'll see my side of the argument.
Eich believes that gay marriage is wrong. I believe that he's wrong about that, and history is increasingly against his opinion. But his opinion doesn't have to do with Mozilla's mission.
By capitulating to public opinion over Eich's personal politics, Mozilla has opened Pandora's box. I worry that people who want to become the heads of major companies and organizations will keep their opinions and donations to themselves, for fear of eventually being condemned for those opinions. And that can only be bad for democracy and openness.