In addition to Josh's and Boris's points, please keep in mind that Mitchell knew about the prop 8 donation ever since 2012, yet she still thought (as a board member) that he would be the best CEO for Mozilla. How could she put any blame on Brendan, when she was the chair of the board who appointed him, in full knowledge of those past events?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Dennis Culley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Panos, > > > > Here is the original quote from 3APr. The tone of this post is unambiguous > in the sense that someone did something wrong. Since Brendan was the only > one to have been affected it is logical to assume that Ms. Mitchell places > the blame squarely on Mr. Eich's shoulders and his position on gay marriage > in 2008. > > > https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-ceo/ > > “Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this > past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, > and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. > > We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough > to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do > better.” > > Prior to this post, Ms. Mitchell had this to say. > > > https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2014/03/26/building-a-global-diverse-inclusive-mozilla-project-addressing-controversy/ > > “I am an avid supporter of equal rights for all. I support equal rights > for the LGBT community, I support equal rights for underrepresented groups, > and I have some pretty radical views about the role of underrepresented > groups in social institutions. I was surprised in 2012, when his donation > in support of Proposition 8 came to light, to learn that Brendan and I > aren’t in close alignment here, since I’ve never seen any indication of > anything other than inclusiveness in our work together (note: I’ve edited > this sentence to give clarity).” > > Here is the problem. It is clear that Ms. Mitchell is “surprised” that > someone could have views that do not support same sex marriage yet still be > inclusive and not discriminatory. Why is that? > > There is an important distinction to be made here. I happen to believe > that words actually have meaning. That men are different than women (in a > good way) and that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is in no way > discriminatory against a gay union but it does indicate a rational basis on > which to disagree with calling it marriage. > > Dennis > > > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 17:56:04 +0300 > Subject: Re: Brendan Eich > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected]; [email protected] > > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Dennis Culley <[email protected]>wrote: > > The fact that Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker fell all over > herself to effectively condemn him in her blog post demonstrates that > Mozilla would prefer to bow to bullying tactics of the left instead of > standing up for freedom of speech. It takes courage to take a stand. > Mozilla failed. > > > Could you quote the specific part of Mitchell's post that you refer to? > Because I haven't read anything like what you describe here. On the > contrary, she has told the entire community in a recent town hall meeting > how she tried to convince him to stay at Mozilla, along with the rest of > the board. This has been officially communicated here: > > https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ > > It is the hope of a lot of us at Mozilla that Brendan will some day decide > to return to the project at some capacity, once this sad incident is behind > us. > > Panos > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
