Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 16

Author Topic: Is it wrong of me to think of the whole Mozilla fiasco as a pretty ugly result?  (Read 22610 times)

Graknorke

  • Bay Watcher
  • A bomb's a bad choice for close-range combat.
    • View Profile

In addition I think another problem was that Eich didn't apologize for the donation and avoided answering questions of whether he is still anti-gay marriage.  So he still holds those views.
That does look bad for him, but I can see why he would want to avoid answering questions regardless of current opinion. It might be that he just wants to be forgotten about as soon as possible.
Logged
Cultural status:
Depleted          ☐
Enriched          ☑

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile

Wait, wait. What does it being illegal or not have to do with anything? Most people don't get fired for doing something illegal. Most folks don't even do something as bad as buggering up their public image before getting fired. Not that the guy got fired but close enough.

S'just... yeah. From the company perspective, he's not being treated like someone that was involved in a hit and run. He's being treated as a high level manager that did something that negatively impacted his public image re: the company's market and then failed to run sufficient spin on it to come out smelling like roses. That... is probably going to get you fired. Quite possibly should, for a high level manager -- PR is damned important these days, as the situation is showing.

Him not having politically correct views is bad for business- but he wasn't the spokesperson for the company- and had a board of directors who were there to prevent any of his worldview slipping into his policies (or he did, before they all left).
Nah T, maybe a decade ago he wouldn't have been a spokesperson for the company, but today? Today, if you're a manager that's anything but the most inward of inward facing -- and probably even then -- you're a spokesperson whether you like it or not. Or will be in a few years. Same for employees, really. That's one of the other reasons (besides increased productivity) that companies are frankly starting to meddle in employee lives. The concept of genuinely "off the clock" is being steadily eroded. Least in the states, ha.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

GreatJustice

  • Bay Watcher
  • ☭The adventure continues (refresh)☭
    • View Profile

Eh, they thought he reflected badly on the company, and they didn't want him to be CEO (which is basically the "face" of the company). It's their decision, and there really isn't anything wrong with it.

Though just to gauge the directions people are coming from, would your views change if he was fired for supporting gay marriage, or donating to a specific political party, or supporting the ACA, or something like that?
Logged
The person supporting regenerating health, when asked why you can see when shot in the eye justified it as 'you put on an eyepatch'. When asked what happens when you are then shot in the other eye, he said that you put an eyepatch on that eye. When asked how you'd be able to see, he said that your first eye would have healed by then.

Professional Bridge Toll Collector?

Bauglir

  • Bay Watcher
  • Let us make Good
    • View Profile

Nope, I still think it was the wrong way to go. Mind you, I put the blame on businesses* that put pressure on Mozilla for this. Whether he was fired and given the option to resign first, or took the initiative in resigning, he and Mozilla did the best thing they could with what they had. If he'd made the donation while he was the CEO, there might be some traction to the CEO is the face of a business argument, but it's insane to argue that he should have anticipated the tides of public opinion and his career path several years in advance. It's pretty much unreasoning hate at that point - a guy did a bad thing, so he deserves literally any bad thing that happens to him.

I understand everything Frumple said, basically, but I strongly disagree that that's how the world should work, and I'm pretty sure that's what the thread is about.

*EDIT: Definitely not on individual consumers, though. No person is obligated to use a particular product, after all.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2014, 01:39:43 pm by Bauglir »
Logged
In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.
“What are you doing?”, asked Minsky. “I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe” Sussman replied. “Why is the net wired randomly?”, asked Minsky. “I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play”, Sussman said.
Minsky then shut his eyes. “Why do you close your eyes?”, Sussman asked his teacher.
“So that the room will be empty.”
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile

Businesses don't have any particular obligation to deal with companies run by homophobes either.

And if the donation 6 years ago is something he regrets then he could have apologized for it.  He didn't, so the issue is more his viewpoint now.
Logged

DJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

I don't see how his private political views are of any relevance for Mozilla.
Logged
Urist, President has immigrated to your fortress!
Urist, President mandates the Dwarven Bill of Rights.

Cue magma.
Ah, the Magma Carta...

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile

but it's insane to argue that he should have anticipated the tides of public opinion and his career path several years in advance. It's pretty much unreasoning hate at that point - a guy did a bad thing, so he deserves literally any bad thing that happens to him.
Except that's not really what's being argued, I'd say. It's been noted repeatedly -- this guy could have saved face easy. A simple "Hey, my bad." or "That was ill-considered of me." (even if he's just talking about the relative stupidity of making a public donation to a potentially controversial movement) would likely have been enough -- and if not, dropping an equal donation to an equal rights movement of some such would have burnt off the rest of the enmity. What's a thousand dollar "I was an idiot" tax to a CEO salary, yeah?

If it were as little an issue of not anticipating public opinion and career path -- and unfortunately, right or not that's exactly what you're having to do these days, if you're not willing to just blanket avoid anything that might cause problems -- simple spin could have solved the issue. And you do not need to be in a CEO position if you can't spin, these days.

And it's like I said. You screw up previous and don't run damage control -- you're done. For a businessperson, that's arguably right and proper -- as many have noted, one of the primary ideals regularly proposed is to not let personal convictions get in the way of business. If that means your personal convictions cause you to need to suck it up and apologize to save company face, you suck it up and apologize, whether you mean it or not. Managing PR is part of the job description these days. For everyone, but especially management.

What happened to this guy was not, perhaps unfortunately, unreasonable to have happen to a high level manager nowadays. Maybe it should be different, I'unno. All I really know is that it isn't different, and it's going to get worse before (if) it gets better, if you're against this sort of thing.

I don't see how his private political views are of any relevance for Mozilla.
Apparently they weren't private if he was making public donations, or insufficiently private if it suddenly became news. Regardless, if he's going to be a major figure in the business, the company's market dislike his political views, and that market knows of them, those views suddenly become very, very relevant to the company.

Moral of the story, really. If you're going to have political beliefs, don't make them public.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

Mictlantecuhtli

  • Bay Watcher
  • Grinning God of Death
    • View Profile

I dont want the public dictating to private companies who they can and cannot appoint as CEO. Especially dictating the terms of what conditions need to be met for a private company to do things 'right' in order to appropriately fire a CEO who honestly shouldn't have been there in the first place. He resigned to save face for himself and Baker, by the way.

All of this is a ruse to distract from their inane heirarchy and now Baker has de-facto control over all of MoCo. Something to think about.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2014, 03:19:59 pm by Mictlantecuhtli »
Logged
I am surrounded by flesh and bone, I am a temple of living. Maybe I'll maybe my life away.

Santorum leaves a bad taste in my mouth,
Card-carrying Liberaltarian

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile

I don't see how his private political views are of any relevance for Mozilla.
They aren't private, and they're relevant because they would otherwise have costed Mozilla a lot of donations and potentially scuppered a deal with Google.
Logged

Sonlirain

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

I don't see how his private political views are of any relevance for Mozilla.
They aren't private, and they're relevant because they would otherwise have costed Mozilla a lot of donations and potentially scuppered a deal with Google.
And they aren't private because someone dug them out and made public.
Logged
"If you make something idiot proof, someone will just make a better idiot."
Self promotion below.
I have a mostly dead youtube channel.

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile

He made a donation which, by law, had to be publicly disclosed.  Nobody "dug it up".
Logged

Sonlirain

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

He made a donation which, by law, had to be publicly disclosed.  Nobody "dug it up".

And apparently everyone was perfectly fine with it for 6 years before they realized they hate him and he should burn in hell for donating to something?
Sorry but no i don't think the public can be that stupid in this day and age to miss an important peace of PUBLICLY DISCLOSED information about someone important FOR 6 YEARS.
As far as i'm concerned someone just wanted him gone dug up a barely relevant part of his past made it loud and let SJWs do his work for him.
Logged
"If you make something idiot proof, someone will just make a better idiot."
Self promotion below.
I have a mostly dead youtube channel.

itisnotlogical

  • Bay Watcher
  • might be dat boi
    • View Profile

When you become the CEO of a company, you are no longer just a person who happens to work somewhere; you are the #1 representative of your company, even in your personal life. Anything you do or have done in the past will reflect on your company because you're the CEO. It's not unfair that your customers demand a certain kind of behavior from you because beyond the marketing and press people, the CEO is seen as the person 'in charge', so anything they do is inextricably linked with their position as head of the company.

The 'SJWs' (I guess I'm one since I support gay marriage?) have every right to be upset with Mozilla, because at least some of them were probably Firefox users, and the person most visibly "in charge" of Firefox did something contrary to their own beliefs.
Logged
This game is Curtain Fire Shooting Game.
Girls do their best now and are preparing. Please watch warmly until it is ready.

WealthyRadish

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

A person's beliefs, ideas, or political affiliations should never be sufficient 'guilt' for a punitive measure, legal or extralegal, which is one of the most fundamental freedoms a person can have. To compare this to a lynch mob is hyperbole, but it's in the same category of sensationalist public reaction and anger that's at odds with what a free society is all about (specifically the rights guaranteed in our constitution). I guess we're fortunate that the government is (usually) held to a higher standard than the public. The only reason why each of us don't have to answer to the public for whatever ideas we may have that go radically contrary to what they would find acceptable is that we're not in the spotlight, and this guy doesn't happen to have that luxury. The really funny part is that he doesn't even hold a radical viewpoint... it's not uncommon for people in the United States to regard homosexuality as unnatural, and state support of it undesirable. I personally disagree with that outlook and would like to see it change, but I respect the right that people have to think that.

Looking at it from a purely business perspective, that donation has absolutely nothing to do with Mozilla or Firefox, or at least wouldn't if people didn't (incorrectly) think it did. The CEO is an employee of the corporation like anyone else, and most people don't have the faintest idea who the CEO is of most of the companies they get products or services from daily. They usually are just interchangeable guys in suits that move from company to company when the board thinks things should go in a new direction, and there's no personal connection there between that CEO and the company itself, let alone its products.
Logged

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile

And apparently everyone was perfectly fine with it for 6 years before they realized they hate him and he should burn in hell for donating to something?
Sorry but no i don't think the public can be that stupid in this day and age to miss an important peace of PUBLICLY DISCLOSED information about someone important FOR 6 YEARS.
As far as i'm concerned someone just wanted him gone dug up a barely relevant part of his past made it loud and let SJWs do his work for him.
Well firstly it's true that the information was public (since 2012 at least) whether you want to believe it or not.
http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/donation/8930/
Secondly there is a difference between a private individual being homophobic and a major organization (one that you might donate to) taking on a homophobe as their CEO.  That's the thing you seem to be missing - this is about Mozilla, not about attacking Eich as an individual.

I personally disagree with that outlook and would like to see it change, but I respect the right that people have to think that.
Why?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 16