> We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.
So Mozilla has to "act" the way some people "expect them to act". There was not even a ballot, poll or evaluation of the man in the position. It was a pretty ridiculous move to avoid bad press. Talk about to sticking to values like meritocracy.
It wasn't just bad press, someone here posted a link to a "biggish" organization in, I think, Australia where they were asking people to boycott Mozilla by not using it's software.
Neither OkCupid nor Proposition 8 appear anywhere in that list: it records donations to the Republican Party or candidates from ordinary employees of OkCupid's corporate parent, IAC.
Also, almost all of the donations predate OkCupid's acquisition by IAC in February 2011.
> We can’t let that happen here: the open internet is not more important than gay rights or any number of other progressive causes, but it should and must be a broader movement. The moment we let “open internet” become synonymous with progressive causes—inside or outside Mozilla—its many conservative supporters will be forced into an impossible position.
This is such an important point. Please, let us not put all our eggs in one basket.
Erin's article is the least mob-like thing I can think of:
"I don’t see there’s much to gain by asking Brendan to resign."
And then:
"Beyond that I guess I only have one more thing to say, which is to Brendan, who is doubtless also having one of the most challenging weeks of his professional life.
Brendan, I grew up in a very conservative religious home and many of the people I love the most can still be described as very religious and very conservative. I think your views on this issue are wrong, and that your actions have done harm, but I can no more caricature you as a terrible person driven by homophobia and hatred than I can break off relations with my cherished family members because they take actions similar to yours."
Why are you completely mischaracterising her post (and, by extension, her)?
"Mob" wasn't to be taken literally. Partly, responding with scarcasm but I guess it didn't come across that way. She has some good commentary on the issue - it's not black and white.
So Mozilla has to "act" the way some people "expect them to act". There was not even a ballot, poll or evaluation of the man in the position. It was a pretty ridiculous move to avoid bad press. Talk about to sticking to values like meritocracy.