Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> So I guess this means no Mozilla leader should be making any private political donations at all, because if they do, Mozilla is at risk of losing half of its (US) leaders in red or blue states.

They can, but they had better think this through. Note that money in politics is a problem to begin with, and that your regular votes are anonymous. If you decide to do so in a public way on a controversial subject then you take a risk.

> I sure hope the employees still have jobs, and if not, they have vetted their new board & CEOs past donations.

Writing this from liberal Europe, the American stance against gay marriage is very puzzling, though even here in the EU there are countries where this sentiment is still alive.

> Do those employees/volunteers feel equally strongly about their "bigoted" user base?

They typically don't know. By advertising it the rules were changed, and that was optional.

> Or are they more morally flexible since that directly impacts their incomes?

How many of the HN folk are in the MIC? How many of them are against anything other than heterosexual relationships? How many of them are racists?

We do not know. We do occasionally get a glimpse when someone deliberately or accidentally outs themselves as such and when they do so in the name of a company that tends to reflect badly on that company. Eich made his own bed and chose to walk rather than to lie in it.

Personally I think the bigger problem with Mozilla/FireFox is the lack of focus and as long as that isn't addressed it does not matter who is in the wheelhouse the only thing that it will affect is the rate at which the ship is going down. The way things are going there won't be another Google payday for Mozilla because there won't be a FireFox userbase left.



> Personally I think the bigger problem with Mozilla/FireFox is the lack of focus

You do realize that you're contradicting yourself, right?

Promoting cancel culture (ousting Eich) isn't exactly focusing on tech. Generally you can only pick one or the other


No, there is no contradiction.

The actions of the CEO and the actions of the employees are two entirely different things.

The CEO could have been just focused on tech and could have left his political flags in the proverbial closet. Instead he chose to bring them out.

Mozilla was already an entity that had made some pretty strong statements about diversity, inclusivity and their view of the open web.

If you then stir up a shitstorm you will find you can no longer effectively focus on the tech either.

So you can very well pick both: make all those statements, live by them, attract employees who see things likewise and then focus on the tech.

But that's a glass house of your own making and if you then start hurling bricks it will have a terrible effect.


He wasn't CEO during the prop. 8 campaign. I don't think we want everyone in tech permanently abstaining from politics just in case there might be a leadership role years later.


It was close enough that it mattered, four years to be precise. If it had been decades ago it likely would have been a different matter.

Dutch proverb: High trees catch a lot of wind.

If you become a high tree, in politics or as a CEO then your past will come under scrutiny, and what is found there may very well have a direct effect on your present day life.


2014-2008=6

It's "close enough" only because you're trying to save face from your incorrect implication/claim you've repeated several times across different comments in this thread that he was the CEO when he did the donation.


It's also worth pointing out that public opinion has swung decisively and dramatically in that intervening time period--at least 20 percentage points IIRC.


2014-2010 = 4.

It's close enough because right up until his apology Eich did not indicate in any way shape or form that he had changed his views on this. Only after it all blew up did he come with his apology. Sure, he wasn't CEO at the time he made his donation but when he stepped forward to become CEO he was well aware of his own position regarding this and knew that to effectively lead Mozilla would be impossible given his - apparently strongly held - views. At least, I'm assuming people do not donate to political causes they do not feel strongly about.


> It was close enough that it mattered, four years to be precise. If it had been decades ago it likely would have been a different matter.

I highly doubt that.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: