https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...
Q: Was Brendan Eich fired?
A: No, Brendan Eich resigned. Brendan himself said:
“I have decided to resign as CEO effective April 3rd, and leave Mozilla. Our mission is bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader. I will be taking time before I decide what to do next.”
Brendan Eich also blogged on this topic.
Q: Was Brendan Eich asked to resign by the Board?
A: No. It was Brendan’s idea to resign, and in fact, once he submitted his resignation, Board members tried to get Brendan to stay at Mozilla in another C-level role.
Funny how so few people know about this law.
That's why they had to come to a settlement to pay him so that he would agree to leave and not pursue his rights under the law.
Exactly how much did they pay him, and why, since they certainly didn't fire him, and just how do you know that? Where is your evidence, or your retraction and apology for lying and spreading misinformation?
I can’t comment on anything about my exit. This will be my only comment, confined to general facts and CA law.
P.S.: CA 1101 labor law is real.
So it did stick to their values, but their values seem superficial rather than functional.
As a user, I would rather have a better browser than a company full of people who think that being against gay marriage 10 years ago means they are dangerous to coworkers or whatnot.
I think it’s great for companies to choose their own values and make their own way. And I can prefer companies that focus on other things.
I don’t necessarily think firing Eich causes Mozilla to suck, but I think Brave is a much better browser and they have far fewer employees with less funding.
I don’t donate to Mozilla and one of the reasons is because their mission is so vague.
As for being a better browser, built in adblocking is great (especially on mobile). But the whole Brave rewards thing is kind of weird and never made sense to me.
Mozilla could have made Brave, they didn’t. Brave is simpler, but better, I think, and even more so shows off how Mozilla’s values aren’t in making awesome software, but in something else.
I largely ignore the weird Brave blockchain thing and just use it as a nice, simple browser.
If they had to literally skin chrome to do then I guess they could. But they should be capable of so much more.
Specially Brave is faster to launch and uses less resources than Firefox and had privacy and ad blocking features turned on by default. I particularly like the little bug that shows you how much bloat it’s blocked.
Ultimately this money is what has enabled Mozilla to exist at all. Brave is living on borrowed money from presumed future revenue from its cryptocurrency scheme which may or may not come to fruition.
They could still just get search placement and make tons and tons of money, enough to develop their browser.
This was also good for multiple accounts; most social media doesn't support clients anymore, or doesn't have good clients, and in order to keep separate topics separate, you need multiple accounts. So now I keep three different browsers open, because there's just no good way to do this otherwise.
I still mostly use Brave, but IMO it's much less differentiated from other browsers than pre-rewrite.
What part of this announcement is valuing "harmony over function"? How does laying off 250 people compute with that?
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...
Q: Was Brendan Eich fired?
A: No, Brendan Eich resigned. Brendan himself said:
“I have decided to resign as CEO effective April 3rd, and leave Mozilla. Our mission is bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader. I will be taking time before I decide what to do next.”
Brendan Eich also blogged on this topic.
Q: Was Brendan Eich asked to resign by the Board?
A: No. It was Brendan’s idea to resign, and in fact, once he submitted his resignation, Board members tried to get Brendan to stay at Mozilla in another C-level role.
This just sounds like willful ignorance to be honest. It was obvious that Eich did not have the backing to remain as CEO.
The whole situation was an embarrassment and a disgrace for everyone involved to be honest. No one came out of it looking good.
Applies to the current CEO then too. Baker shouldn't be CEO.
There is something very wrong about that sentence of yours.
The obvious reality is that Eich realized he fucked up and could no longer effectively lead Mozilla, given that they are as much about their self reinforced myth of being the internet good guys as they are about tech.
And so he stepped down.
The kind of scene that you are envisioning occurs in Maffia movies but not IRL. Eich was under a lot of pressure, but most of that as a direct consequence of the inherent conflict between Mozilla's stated external position and Eich's personal actions. When you are CEO of such a large company you know that you can't combine the two unless you mean it.
Props to Eich for doing what was right instead of further harming Mozilla.
Anyway you seem to be quite stuck on your interpretation, all of the people involved have a single consistent story and instead you want to believe your own. You are of course welcome to your opinion.
He donated to leave the existing law in place that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
Hell, even Obama ran on keeping that the law.
> That's a deserving case of cancel culture, if there is any.
Be careful what you wish for. The mob is all fun and games until they show up at your door.
This is wrong in every way that actually matters.
The California State Supreme Court struck down the law which banned gay marriage, and gay couples were allowed go be married. Many many gay couples were married during this period.
Eich donated to Proposition 8, a ballot initiative which provided an amendment to the California State Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman within the state consitution, in effect overruling the judgement of the California Supreme Court.
It was not an effort to "leave the law in place", it was an effort to remove from gay couples a right which they had already been granted by the court system, and to freeze this into the constitution itself.
So imagine being a gay Mozilla employee and knowing that your boss not only wants to prevent you from gaining civil rights, but wants to remove civil rights which you were already granted.
> Hell, even Obama ran on keeping that the law.
DOMA is completely unrelated. This is about the California Constitution, not any state or federal law.
FYI: I'm queer.
So are Aaron Schock and Lindsey Graham, but that doesn't mean they're not also self loathing bigots.
https://signorile.substack.com/p/lindsey-grahams-queer-predi...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/us/politics/aaron-schock-...
No. That is not deserving, even if there was any.
The faq is lying. If a company is going to pressure someone out of a position in this kind of a situation, they are obviously going to lie about it.
In the same way that companies will lie and say things like "he quit to spend more time with his family", this FAQ is also a lie.
> Has Eich himself ever claimed
Obviously Eich was paid money to not try and take down the company with him.
That's how these situations work. Of course he isn't going to go scortched earth. He doesn't benefit from that.
How did he benefit from going scorched earth by trying to destroy other people's marriages?
The evidence is that he was pushed out of the CEO position, and received a monetary settlement lol.
A person would have to be extremely stupid to think that if someone got pushed out of a CEO position, that it is somehow impossible that the company/ceo would be incentivized to not talk about.
There is quite obviously a financial incentive here. I am not sure how someone could deny the existence of this financial incentive.
This is standard stuff. It is completely reasonable that either of them would not want the bad publicity from that, and that there are financial incentives to not admit that he was pushed out of the CEO position.
Executives get pushed out of positions, without companies or the executives admitting to it, or lying and saying that they left voluntarily.
I specifically asked you for evidence, which you failed to provide. "Laughing out loud" is not proof, it just highlights that you don't have any.
So I'll ask you again for proof: provide a link to a reputable source that proves that he was pushed out, that he received a monetary settlement, and that Eich and the FAQ are lying.
Otherwise the only thing you've proven is that homophobes will bend over backwards, twist facts, and lie to rationalize and cover up for each other's bigotry. If you can't prove it, then apologize for spreading misinformation.
You're accusing Eich and the board of lying, but now I've asked you to prove that YOU are not lying, and you've failed.
Someone would have to be completely and entirely lost, to not be able to see the clear and obvious motivations for a large corporation to lie about the idea that it pushed their freaking CEO out of the position.
It is not misinformation to point out the completely apparent financial motivation for them doing this.
That is the evidence that I am referencing.
I absolutely consider it to be evidence if there is a huge and obvious financial motivation.
Free speech and anti-corporate attitudes are traditionally liberal values. Nowadays, you see arguments from bigots that oppose corporate power over free speech. We shouldn't be forced to withdraw our positions on free speech or corporate power just because they're associated with bigotry now. The idea of expecting others to do so is apalling to me, even if I'm not on board with the virtue signalling stuff specifically.
Mozilla doesn't have any more business interest devoting resources to LGBT causes than Chick-Fil-A has a business interest in funding anti-LGBT causes.
The difference is Chick-Fil-A makes money hand over fist and can afford to take its eye off the prize a little. Mozilla doesn't have that same luxury.
So Eich's case is, despite superficial resemblance, markedly different. Mozilla built a brand around openness and the idea of "putting people first" and making them feel "empowered, safe and independent." (Those quotes are from at least one version of their mission statement.) Eich's backing of the anti-gay-marriage initiative was a PR problem for them in a way that it might not have been for many other companies. Also, he violated the first rule of holes (i.e., when you're in one, stop digging); it's possible they might have been able to do effective damage control without booting him if his initial response hadn't been, in so many words, "it's my money and I can do what I want with it."
And, sure: it is, and he can. The CEO of a nonprofit Catholic hospital chain could also use their money to donate to Planned Parenthood. But, if they did, we can be reasonably sure the hospital's boards of directors would have words with them about it.
You could certainly disagree with the interests of the Mozilla Foundation's board, and could choose to support another organization, like Brave Software, that has different ones, but are you suggesting that a board should not be able to determine the interests, within legal limits, for a non-profit, or that the sole shareholder of a corporation should not be able to control its interests and mission?
Right. They can choose to do whatever they want, it's their call.
My point is Mozilla has pretty clearly been in some tough straits for a while now trying to remain relevant. Now they are having to lay people off.
In my opinion, they have bigger issues to worry about as a corporation than social values, etc.
But also I'm just a random nobody on the internet, so what's it really matter?
That's exactly what politics in the US is. It literally just boils down to that in terms of practical effect.
The last time they were in power they started multiple wars that has cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.
I don't think we live in the same universe.
I think that train started rolling when they forced Eich out as CEO.
Ever since then, Mozilla seems to be less about best-in-class technology, and more about virtue signalling.