People have all sorts of private opinions. I hate the DMCA and think it represents an extremely dangerous precedent that completely misrepresents why laws like copyright were created in the first place. The idea is almost more dangerous than the implementation. That said, I think I would be ok with the Mozilla CEO donating to the DMCA as long as he did not take action on that opinion at work. I would be cynical and watching the corporate behaviour like a hawk. I would give little benefit of the doubt in assuming the worst of any official behaviour, policy, or stance that seemed inappropriate. I would be unsympathetic about any consequences that resulted from inappropriately projecting personal values into corporate action. I cannot say that I agree that it is appropriate to take corporate action against somebody for the opinions they hold as a private citizen.
A pharmacist needs to provide birth control even if they personally object to it for religious reasons—-because it is the law. If they don’t, there should be consequences ( perhaps losing their license ). However, it does not follow for me that they should be penalized for stating their opinion privately, at a rally, via donation, or even in the local paper. He has the right to stop his own daughter but not to stop mine. What he does with his family is not a good reason for me to go after his business. Now, I might not support his business. That is my personal decision. I might even suggest that others don’t support him either. I sure hope that this would not lead me to lose my job though. That would not seem at all fair to me. In fact, I would consider shutting down my freedom of speech and action like that to be quite unethical.
"I cannot say that I agree that it is appropriate to take corporate action against somebody for the opinions they hold as a private citizen."
This is definitely valid! I thiiink I'd still disagree- in a public-facing leadership role, it's just not that easy to separate personal actions from business-related ones- but it's definitely a view I have some sympathy for. I do get where you're coming from.
That said- Eich resigned. He wasn't fired. And so far I've seen no real evidence that this wasn't just his decision- that he realized he wasn't the best candidate for CEO because of his past actions. Perhaps he really was just pushed out... If you have anything backing that up, I'd like to see it.
Because from what I've read- and that's not too much, so if there's any info I'm missing please fill me in- if I say "I don't like the CEO, I won't donate anymore while he's in charge, and you shouldn't either"...am I in the wrong?
The only reason I can find that he gave was "I resigned because I could not be an effective leader under the circumstances"; I don't know what unrelated reasons you think he gave, although if you want to share a link, that'd be great. Mozilla's own blog post about his resignation was "Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard, and this past week, we didn't live up to it." It's super hard not to read all that as him being asked to resign, and CNET's rather long autopsy article on it says that the board wanted to offer him another position but he chose to quit everything. (That article also says that there was a lot of doubt about whether he'd make a good CEO for reasons entirely unrelated to this; he was known for, as a Mozilla Foundation director put it, having an "inability to connect and empathize with people.")
The Board didn't defend him publicly. I think, when a Board fails to publicly support their choice of CEO in face of a controversy, for a CEO that's basically a form of constructive dismissal.
Yes, exactly. That’s what I was trying to get across by quoting Baker not defending him, and what “asked to resign” means. I generally don’t complain about HN downvotes, but it’s more puzzling to me than usual — do people think I was saying Eich wasn’t fired? [shrug emoji]
People have all sorts of private opinions. I hate the DMCA and think it represents an extremely dangerous precedent that completely misrepresents why laws like copyright were created in the first place. The idea is almost more dangerous than the implementation. That said, I think I would be ok with the Mozilla CEO donating to the DMCA as long as he did not take action on that opinion at work. I would be cynical and watching the corporate behaviour like a hawk. I would give little benefit of the doubt in assuming the worst of any official behaviour, policy, or stance that seemed inappropriate. I would be unsympathetic about any consequences that resulted from inappropriately projecting personal values into corporate action. I cannot say that I agree that it is appropriate to take corporate action against somebody for the opinions they hold as a private citizen.
A pharmacist needs to provide birth control even if they personally object to it for religious reasons—-because it is the law. If they don’t, there should be consequences ( perhaps losing their license ). However, it does not follow for me that they should be penalized for stating their opinion privately, at a rally, via donation, or even in the local paper. He has the right to stop his own daughter but not to stop mine. What he does with his family is not a good reason for me to go after his business. Now, I might not support his business. That is my personal decision. I might even suggest that others don’t support him either. I sure hope that this would not lead me to lose my job though. That would not seem at all fair to me. In fact, I would consider shutting down my freedom of speech and action like that to be quite unethical.