[makeitdouble]

On Mozilla in particular, I think people joining it and supporting it in general have a fairly stronger opinion on what an organization should have as values than for many other large size companies (let's say Microsoft, Oracle or Accenture for instance).

Is a good or a bad thing ? Honestly I don't think Mozilla would have grown as much without all the social clout it has. There's no denying it has a tremendous effect on the pool of candidates, and the users choosing to support the company even as other products can be objectively better.

As you say it cuts both ways as they now have a kind of moral handcuffs limiting the views and moral/political positions they can have at the leadership and PR level. I personally see it as net positive, but we can agree to disagree.

[raxxorraxor]

Yes, we would have to disagree. Mozilla previously had a reputation of being open and tolerant, even for people with more conservative viewpoints. While the proclamation for inclusion might be louder today, it is far less believable now.

Especially if there are any moral "handcuffs" as you say, because that would be an obvious contradiction to their stated values which I would argue people will notice.

The rules of PR demand that you are less free with what you communicate and it also demands you to lie. Many opportunities that Mozilla had were lost without any gain.

Hard to believe that Eich discriminated against gay people like you suggested. And I feel that isn't even the issue of those that complained here.