I started using FF since 0.7 version guy, I switch to chrome after the internal Mozilla stupid polemics for Brendan marriage position.
Open web? please, do me the favour..
So even though Eich stepped down over the issue, and gay developers said that the work culture at Mozilla did not represent Eich's position at all, you switched browsers?
The LGBT folks won that battle. If you don't switch back, then you've hurt their cause. OkCupid did this - they made a big song and dance about boycotting FireFox, intruding their political message into all their users' lives... and when the LGBT side won, not a peep out of OkCupid to repair the damage they'd done. Some others did similar things - appearing righteous was more important to them than actually being mature. If you don't stop the boycott after you've won, then the problem is with you.
(note: I am actually very pro-gay rights, but the actions of some around the Eich debacle were as deplorable as he was)
Are you seriously contending that collective punishment (I mean punishing a group based on judgments against one of its members; and the corollary collective reward) is moral, efficacious, or both?
So all the lemmings who dropped (or just said they would drop) Firefox while I was CEO were obligated to rush back on board once I left? What about the various right-wingers who #nozilla'ed and otherwise boycotted after I left?
How about using the best browser in the market, built by people of diverse opinions and high ability who come together to do excellent work?
There's a good idea that seems to appeal to many people, of whatever various and diverse beliefs.
Don't put words into my mouth - I made zero comment on the morality of the initial action, only on the morality of people who don't clean up after themselves.
I think that your position that gave rise to the debacle was indeed deplorable, but at the same time, boycotting Mozilla was the wrong thing to do. I didn't support the boycott, because it was striking at people unrelated to the issue at hand.
Finally, if you're conducting a specific action on the basis of a moral position, then yes, you are morally obligated to reverse yourself when you win. It's the point of taking a moral position in the first place.
I didn't put words in your mouth. Your words were "If you don't switch back, then you've hurt their cause." Or now, a negative judgment on "the morality of people who don't clean up after themselves."
Thanks for writing more about your position. I appreciate that you don't endorse collective punishment. However, I still do not agree with your collective judgment of those who may have boycotted Firefox on account of me for not returning after I left. They could have found other reasons not to switch back, having tried another browser. I heard directly from some people who had exactly that experience.
It seems to me we disagree on obligations based on reactions. That's ok, peace. I suggest that cause and effect, action and reaction, are not as simple and Newtonian as you seem to say. Not only might people who left Firefox while I was CEO have found the grass greener -- some might have changed their minds and then become appalled by post-me Mozilla, and not come back on that basis.
The LGBT folks won that battle. If you don't switch back, then you've hurt their cause. OkCupid did this - they made a big song and dance about boycotting FireFox, intruding their political message into all their users' lives... and when the LGBT side won, not a peep out of OkCupid to repair the damage they'd done. Some others did similar things - appearing righteous was more important to them than actually being mature. If you don't stop the boycott after you've won, then the problem is with you.
(note: I am actually very pro-gay rights, but the actions of some around the Eich debacle were as deplorable as he was)