Hi Jim! On 4/8/2014 4:44 PM, Jim Taylor wrote: > Michael, > > What a cheap line 'It didn’t work out'.
I don't think Mike intended any of his words to be a "cheap line." Those words are definitely an understatement for how upsetting the situation became: Brendan, a person whose vision and efforts helped define a cause that we all stand for, felt he had to walk away from his life's work in order to protect it. Many Mozillians are heartbroken over the situation. > Mitchell's blog post 'didn’t work out'. There's been some conversation in this newsgroup about Mitchell's blog post. It might be worth reading some of the other discussion to see if it lines up with your concerns about the post. If it doesn't, you might want to start a new thread in this newsgroup specifically pointing out the issues/concerns you have with the blog post. > -------------------------------------------- > On Tue, 4/8/14, Michael Connor <[email protected]> wrote: > > Subject: Re: Moderation policy > To: "Catherine Murphy" <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2014, 3:37 PM > > Hi Catherine, > > I was also that first commenter, and I think you’re > raising an understandable concern, and one worth addressing > explicitly. > > As a starting point, there’s an old (generally > misattributed [1]) quote that reads: "Your right to swing > your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins.” > [1] For me, that’s a good guiding principle on what > actions I consider acceptable within a Mozilla > context. I want everyone to feel safe, welcome, and > included in Mozilla. Actively promoting discrimination > or inequality has been clearly harmful and hurtful in the > past, which is why we brought in the community > guidelines. The goal was to keep those activities > separate from Mozilla (while making it clear that those > activities outside of Mozilla were explicitly private > issues) because they were clearly damaging to the > community. On the other hand, it’s difficult for me > to see how promotion of equality or inclusion harms others, > so I struggle with the idea of restricting those > activities. > > To that end, I’ll note another famous quote: "The most > stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man > in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a > panic.” Free speech has always been constrained by > the ability to cause harm, and through the CPG we’ve > sought to be as minimal as possible in terms of restriction, > only seeking to prevent harm to the Mozilla community and > mission. > > In terms of Brendan, I think the guidelines actually > reinforced our internal treatment of Brendan: what you do > outside of Mozilla is your own business, not that of > Mozilla. We followed that principle in giving him > greater responsibility last year and when he was appointed > CEO. It didn’t work out, unfortunately, but it was > external factors that drove him out, not company or > community policies. > > Thanks for all of your thoughtful comments and > participation. > > — Mike > > [1] http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zechariah_Chafee > [2] http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr. > (often credited with the Chafee quote as well) > > On Apr 7, 2014, at 11:58 AM, Catherine Murphy <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Thanks for the responses and I understand the > worthiness of the goal. Of > > course no one should ever be exposed to discrimination > in the workplace. . > > In this particular context, though -- at least, as > explained by the first > > commenter who triggered my question by expressing his > belief that advocacy > > against same-sex marriage is impermissibly > exclusionary, although advocacy > > for same-sex marriage apparently is not -- it would > seem that Mozilla's > > policy permits some people to express their views on > this topic (those who > > disagree with the substance of Eich's views) > while forbidding others > > (those who agree) from doing so. If I were a > Mozilla employee engaged in > > this debate about the CEO's qualifications, hearing > others freely allowed > > to express their views in this very important > work-related subject but > > enjoined from responding or expressing my own views -- > I would certainly > > feel excluded and discriminated against. > > > > In the context of government 1st amendment law, this is > why speech > > restrictions are supposed to be content-neutral -- > equally applied to all > > speakers regardless of viewpoint. In this case, > it would mean that there > > should be no discussion of same-sex marriage, pro or > con, in a work-related > > forum, regardless of the speaker's position. I > think most workplaces have > > something more like that in place, explicitly or > implicitly. Of course, > > the 1st amendment doesn't govern Mozilla, which can put > in place whatever > > restrictions it sees fit. I don't work at Mozilla > and feel that it's past > > time for me to bow out of this discussion and leave it > to you. But as you > > figure out how to go on from here, maybe it would be > worth considering > > whether viewpoint-based restrictions on free speech -- > which, in effect if > > not in intent, allow speech to some while forbidding it > for others -- may > > have been partially responsible for what went so > terribly wrong here, and > > whether it might be worth revisiting Mozilla's policies > to see if there's a > > better way to protect employees from discrimination > while also protecting > > employees' ability to express their views freely, > when necessary in a > > work-related context. > > > > I really appreciate the thoughtful and enlightening > comments made by so > > many people. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Mike Connor <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> To follow up on Till's comment: Mozilla is > committed to being as inclusive > >> as possible. That explicitly means we welcome > anyone regardless of their > >> beliefs, as long as they share our commitment to > the Mozilla mission and > >> are willing to work with other equally committed > people. This, by > >> necessity, requires that Mozilla spaces remain free > of advocacy against > >> the inclusion or rights of others, and free of > discriminatory practices. > >> As a purely practical matter, it's hard to imagine > a member of any group > >> feeling comfortable in a space where others are > permitted to openly > >> discriminate against them. The same is of > course true of anti-religious > >> discrimination, which is equally frowned upon. > >> > >> -- Mike > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: governance > >> [mailto:[email protected]] > On > >> Behalf Of Catherine Murphy > >> Sent: April 6, 2014 1:44 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: Moderation policy > >> > >> My understanding of the CPG is that promotion of > exclusionary practices is > >> not permitted, full stop. Thus I don't think > it's unreasonable to expect > >> that advocacy against same-sex marriage is not > permitted on a Mozilla > >> forum. > >> > >> As gently and civilly as I can, I'd like to point > out that it seems pretty > >> exclusionary to forbid people who hold a certain > belief -- for many, > >> though not all, a religious belief -- from uttering > it. I am curious as > >> to how this policy about exclusionary practices > works out in practice at > >> Mozilla -- and I'm not trying to be provocative or > uncivil, I really want > >> to know. Are, say, Muslims or fundamentalist > Christians --many of whom > >> hold religious beliefs about women's rights, > homosexuality and various > >> other matters, that look exclusionary to liberal > Americans -- permitted to > >> work at Mozilla? Do they have to keep quiet > about their beliefs to > >> protect their jobs? If so, why isn't that > exclusionary? > >> > >> On Sunday, April 6, 2014 11:09:48 AM UTC-4, Michael > Connor wrote: > >>> On Apr 6, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Gervase Markham > <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Hi Mike, > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> On 06/04/14 15:26, Michael Connor wrote: > >>> > >>>>> There's a lot of really poisonous and > hateful stuff coming through. I > >>> > >>>>> don't think Mao/Stalin comparisons are > any better than Nazi > >>> > >>>>> comparisons. Or concern trolling > about pedophilia advocacy (which is > >>> > >>>>> a common false equivalency used to > attack pro-LGBT activities). > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> Yes, OK. I will try and do better and read > more carefully. It's > >>> > >>>> difficult to decide what to do when you > have a message which is mostly > >> OK. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I'd err on the side of caution. If people > are willing to engage in a > >> healthy, civil manner, I'm sure they'd be willing > to re-submit a post that > >> conforms to the CPG. If they're not willing > be civil and constructive, > >> they should not be given a platform here. The > Web has plenty of places > >> people can vent without restriction. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> A large number of these posts are, in > my opinion, a direct violation > >>> > >>>>> of the requirement to keep support for > exclusionary practices out of > >>> > >>>>> Mozilla spaces as enshrined in the > Community Participation Guidelines > >>> > >>>>> [1], > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> Can you walk me through how you reach that > conclusion? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> * I don't believe it's ever acceptable under > the CPG to advocate against > >> LGBT marriage rights. > >>> > >>> * I'd explicitly drop posts using any of the > common "attack" tactics: > >>> > >>> ** Comparisons to pedophilia > >>> > >>> ** Complaining about the "gay/queer/homosexual > agenda" > >>> > >>> ** Arguing the right of the majority to dictate > to the minority > >>> > >>> ** Toxic comparisons like Mao/Stalin against > those who believe > >> differently > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> I think it would be unreasonable, if there > were two messages of equal > >>> > >>>> "intensity", one on each side of the issue, > to use the CPG as > >>> > >>>> justification to delete one and post the > other. Is that what you are > >>> > >>>> asking for? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> My understanding of the CPG is that promotion > of exclusionary practices > >> is not permitted, full stop. Thus I don't > think it's unreasonable to > >> expect that advocacy against same-sex marriage is > not permitted on a > >> Mozilla forum. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> By the same token, if there was advocacy > against those with religious > >> beliefs (i.e. "Brendan should have been fired for > his beliefs" is a common > >> thing I've seen elsewhere) I would equally call > those violations. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> As, perhaps, a key distinction: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> * I think it's 100% on board to defend > Brendan's right to his beliefs. > >>> > >>> * I think it's 100% out of line to > debate/defend the correctness of > >> Brendan's beliefs > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Does that distinction make sense to you? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> and I'd hardly call most of them > "civil" in the context of the > >>> > >>>>> Forum Etiquette [2]. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> A lot of people are very angry, and I think > that if we thought it was > >>> > >>>> important to listen to the other group of > angry people: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I'm 100% fine with engaging with angry people, > if they are civil, and > >> willing to constructively engage. I'd hope > that you can see the > >> difference between constructive questioning and > emotional attacks. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> "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." > >>> > >>>> > >> https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozill > >> a-ceo/ > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> then it's important to listen to this one > too. I think that, in the > >>> > >>>> circumstances, we should cut more slack > than usual here. And > >> Mozillians > >>> > >>>> have been engaging with the angry people in > the group, and even won > >> some > >>> > >>>> over; please feel free to join in. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I'll note that the people getting direct > responses tend to be the people > >> who are civil, rather than hateful. I'm happy > to engage with individuals > >> who are willing to engage in a civil way. I've been > trying to do that > >> where I have time. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- Mike > >> _______________________________________________ > >> governance mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
