Hi,
I'm not an employee. I'm just a contributor, a very minor one
at that. So perhaps what I have to say is inconsequential.
I also don't live in the US, so I do not understand the
intricacies of the US system of values. Hell, I don't
even understand the values of my government.
Anyway.
Hurt begets hurt.
Proposition 8 hurt a lot of people. It restricted people's
rights to marry with the person they love. Proposition 8
was overruled last year. So in essence, it is now irrelevant.
Now Brendan Eich's appointment to CEO opened the wounds,
I would say. Some people didn't appreciate the appointment
and used their rights to speech to publicly call for his
resignation. (Note, not all people hurt by Proposition8 and
are Mozilla employees choose to do this.) Brendan Eich resigned.
He's hurt. Mozilla's hurt. Those who work in Mozilla or
contributed to Mozilla are in difficult positions. Some
are probably wondering what to believe now. Did Brendan Eich's
resignation manage to heal the hurt that those people had?
If so, at what cost? If not, what has changed?
What has this incident taught us? The precedent that
it sets is alarming.
Contrast this to the Lewinsky Scandal. President Bill Clinton
was charged with and was acquitted of perjury and
obstruction of justice. He later acknowledged what
he did with Monica Lewinsky was wrong. Who was hurt
the most? Of course, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.
Having your husband/father's infidelity broadcasted across
the nation's televisions would have been a very big
violating blow to them. What did they do?
They stood by him. Hillary probably had a 1-1 discussion with
him privately on how they were to deal with this
and to recover their marriage.
Could she have aired her grievance in public?
Could she have asked her husband to resign?
Sure. Did she? No. She placed her personal
issues aside and thought for the greater good
of the country. He made a mistake, pure and
simple. Why wasn't there a public uproar on his infidelity?
Can a president be impeached for infidelity? Maybe you should?
Maybe you should be impeached for violating the marriage
you're supposed to hold dear? We're talking about
violating marriage values. After all, the president
is the 'public-facing' entity of the country.
The president represents the values of the country.
Both groups were hurt. They did different things
and therefore the results were different. Naturally,
different actions created different results.
I understand everyone in the US has the right to speak
out in what they believe. AFAIK, they even have
the right to act out what they believe provided
it's legal. But is it necessarily the right thing
to do? You have a tool in your hand. What you do with it
is up to you within the legal framework. Should you
take responsibilities for your actions? Sure.
It was known in 2012 that he made the donation.
Why wasn't he made to be responsible for his donation then?
I read that there were a few complaints. What happened?
Why did the complaints not get any momentum? Why
wasn't anything done to deal with the issue?
When is a standard a standard when it changes when
the position changes? Different expectations of
positions? So did Brendan Eich's past performance
as the CTO indicate that he would be pushing his
beliefs on the company? He didn't do that before,
but because of his donation, people expect he will do
it when he becomes the CEO?
Where does Mozilla stand now?
For one thing, who would want to be CEO, now
that it's been made known that if you have a belief
and legally acted on it, you could just well be called
to resign by those within the company that hold a different
belief system. It's now irrelevant if it was acted on privately.
It's also irrelevant that the proposition in question is
irrelevant now. Because your private belief is now public.
Why are private donations made public? To stem the possibility
of 'hanky panky' with organizations and political systems?
If its eventual that private donations are made public, why
make it private in the first place? That's just seriously
screwed up.
Would Brendan Eich return to Mozilla? I really have my doubts.
Of course, I'm not him. He certainly can come back. But things
will be different. While his beliefs are unwaivering, his trust
in the organization could very well be shattered. I'd be disillusioned
myself. I mean, the organization that he helped to build has let him
down in his hour of need. Mitchell Baker's "Brendan had the
technical vision. But he did not have the head of state part" really
was disappointing. (Let me ask everyone a question. Are we all
'born' with "head of state" parts?)
Does Mozilla have 'channels' for people to air their grievances
privately with those involved? If so, were these channels used? If
not, this is a very good time to start one. Sure, it's late for this;
but it will be a good one for the next one, should one come. If those
channels weren't used, why not?
Look. I have no problems with people airing their grievances,
provided they had exhausted internal channels. We are talking
about a company. Not a government body. Companies have their labour
grievance policies. Did they? Brendan Eich was appointed CEO.
Within a day, some Mozilla employees requested him to resign.
Between the announcement of the appointment and the request for
resignation, was there any grievance resolutions between the two
parties? Why weren't more time spent on trying to settle the
differences? If there are personnel issues within the organization,
should it not be resolved internally? Isn't that the reason why
they have arbitration? Or does it not apply to non-profit
organizations?
A Chinese saying states:
城門失火，殃及池魚
"a fire in the city gates is also a calamity for the
fish in the moat "
IOW, the bystander will also suffer.
From this, I have learnt quite a few things about interactions,
fallibility, errors, and how something done in the past, and is
irrelevant in the present, can still bite you.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
