| What exactly is the point you're trying to make here? First, he was the CEO at the time of the controversy - a much more symbolically important leadership position than CTO. For many companies, their CEO is the face of the company, which makes any controversy much more damaging. Second, he contributed money to a political campaign that was socially unacceptable to a large enough group of people that they made an enormous amount of noise about it. As a result, he stepped down (whether willingly or not behind the scenes, it was publically a willing resignation) because, in his words, "under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader." [1] Isn't that the way the market is supposed to work? People boycotting Mozilla (i.e. "voting with their feet") led to the corporation responding to its consumers' desires. What's the relation to a state registry based on religion, again? Also, there is a difference between tolerance of opposing viewpoints, and tolerance of open attempts to strip others of rights. The political campaign he funded was very much the latter. -- [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat... |