Yeah a couple of Mozillians who've worked closely with him mentioned news of the donation were at odds and struck them by surprise, also because it was not otherwise observable in any of his behavior.
It starts to become a litmus test when trying to define when it's acceptable to boycott and demand resignation. Was Mozilla a special case because of their mission and foundation status? What behavior makes someone's position unacceptable? A large donation? a small donation, a vote? Or is it due to outside community consensus at the time? so when the donation was discovered in 2011, it wasn't appropriate, but reappearing after more passing years it is?
And are other companies really beholden to their users so much?
The duration wasn't relevant as he explicitly declined to say anything about his "personal views", leading people to believe he still supports them. Other companies are fairly good at backpedaling and saying they didn't really mean it, whatever it may be.
And anyways, no one is saying he's not allowed to be the CEO. Just that apparently a lot of people got annoyed at that and felt it to be wrong in some way. I don't see any "life sentence" here. If I start promoting the idea that stupid people be discouraged from reproducing, I shouldn't be surprised that folks might not want me in a public role, even if I'm right.
The whole mob mentality is a bit concerning - I don't recall much discussing about Eich's suitability or the higher importance of what he's doing.
GoDaddy got quite a bit of hate due to the founder smiling with a shot elephant.