>That neither Eich or the board thought of this ahead of the time does, actually, suggest they're not up to the job. This is SIMPLE STUFF.

Evidence suggests that they've been spending months fighting a battle pertaining to picking an insider as CEO, which ultimately caused three members to resign from the Moz Co. board.

Which explains why they were so unprepared for anything else.

e: Bogus theory by Ars and WSJ, Mozilla issued a statement that the shake-up of board members was planned well in advance amongst themselves for various reasons.

Two of the three resignations were planned beforehand and were not related to the CEO choice (see the update at the bottom of http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/three-mozilla-board-...).

Thanks for the clarification, haven't been following this very closely and didn't read Mozilla's statement in response (it wasn't very prompt.)

Nevertheless, I'd suggest that being able to walk and chew gum is something a CEO needs.

"If they had ANY clue, they'd have thought of this ahead of time."

Maybe they were occupied finding a man with the necessary technical and leading capabilities, plus the experience and whatever else I may have forgot?

it's EXTREMELY bizarre that they would not have seriously thought of it.

Unless they all share the same opinions as Eich and they feel that being against gay marriage is like being against anchovies on your pizza. Then it would never have hit them that this was a serious problem.

Is it right to not employ someone because of their legally held beliefs with regard to sexual behaviour?

Is HN [amongst others] calling for all people who disagree with legislation on homosexual relationships being called marriage to forfeit their rights to employment; or perhaps all those that consider homosexual sexual activity to be wrong? That seems like the logical conclusion here.

Is this going to be continued with all beliefs - ousting those that disprove of drunkennes or drug taking or polygamy or adultery?

Why should a company pry in to an employee's private beliefs and associations in the way you're suggesting?

This is more of an opinion about what is best for Mozilla's image in the public eye, not about anyone's right to have a job.

You can without a doubt hire a murderer as your CEO. It will always be my opinion that you should at least think very hard about doing so before you make the final decision.

If you run for president and you're a satan worshipper, then it would be my opinion that you will lose. If you own a cookie company and want to hire a murderer as a CEO, it would simply be my opinion that you may lose sales. If you don't care about my opinion, or don't care about sales, and go ahead and hire a murderer as CEO, then that's perfectly fine. At the end of the day, it's really up to you.

But if someone out there wants to organize a boycott because the CEO isn't a vegan, that's also fine.

I think stupidity is a sufficient explanation.

"I'm envisioning the board standing around with glassy stares, 'I have no idea how this could have happened. We totally vetted his geek cred.'" - rone

But, at the same time, it still had to not bother them sufficiently enough to raise serious questions.

To me, it's like watching someone kick a puppy and then considering him for CEO.

"hey, how about this guy? He kicked a puppy."

"Is there anything about him that we need to be aware of?"

"no, not that I know of."

> They released it too late.

Calls for boycott are happening AFTER it was released. I think it's the content (or lack thereof) of that letter that makes it ineffective.

> If they had ANY clue, they'd have thought of this ahead of time. e.g. Brendan donates $2k or $5k to a gay charity requiring a public record

So now we prefer lying bigots to honest bigots? That reeks so much of hypocrisy, it is disgusting.

I know. But, y'know, "I've tried to take away your rights and I refuse to talk about it, but hey! I promise I won't do it again, baby!" isn't playing out too well in practice.