You might say "requirements for the candidate's personal political opinions", others might say "requirements for the candidate to not hold offensive, discriminatory political opinions".
Others might say "requirements that the incumbent -- not candidate -- be able and willing to effectively manage PR issues that affect the company's interests, whatever their origin or relation to the incumbent."
> others might say "requirements for the candidate to not hold offensive, discriminatory political opinions".
Or just you know don't give significant amount of money to enshrine your offensive and discriminatory political opinions into law, expect open arms when nominated to head a company generally considered progressive then whine that it's unfair to scrutinise and criticise your actions.
Is that what we're calling $1000 today? That's not even rent money in the bad areas of the Bay Area.
> then whine that it's unfair
Citation please.
I really can't believe HN right now, trying to deny the fact that prop 8 passed. Unbelievable. Let's all rewrite history, getting rid of an inconvenient fact. Oh, and screw political freedom too.
Because if you are a reasonable person, then you realize crucifying a guy for having a consensus, mainstream opinion is absurd. It's revisionist, retro-active punishing from the political losers here. A majority of California agreed with him.
Not only that, but targeting Mozilla but ignoring JavaScript is the absolute height of hypocrisy and hollowless grandstanding, done by people that have a financial stake in JavaScript, but not Mozilla.
I'm not sure what defines a "consensus, mainstream opinion", but support for gay marriage has been over 50% for a few years now. Hardly a definitive yes, but it's certainly not a consensus to the opposite. In California specifically, 61% supported gay marriage in 2013[1].
And he wasn't 'crucified' for having the opinion, it was because he actively contributed to a campaign. Holding a private opinion and financially contributing to a cause are quite different things.
Not only that, but targeting Mozilla but ignoring JavaScript is the absolute height of hypocrisy
It absolutely is not. Does "JavaScript" pay Eich a salary? Is it a money making entity? Does he even have anything to do with the day to day running of it? Of course not.
You do realize that we're talking about Prop 8, which was 2008 here. Prop 8 passed.
Again, stop this revisionist bullshit.
> Does "JavaScript" pay Eich a salary?
Eich's entire fucking resume could be:
"Created JavaScript"
That's it. He would sail from conference to conference until the end of bloody time, raking in thousands if not millions of dollars here.
OkCupid wanted it both ways. They wanted to keep their skin out of the game when it would hurt their bottom line, but wanted to make political points for that easy PR gain. So they targeted Mozilla.
The Prop 8 result doesn't matter. The Mozilla community are not the population of California. They are entitled to have different opinions to them.
As for the JS stuff, you're now just throwing out a bunch of coulds, woulds and shoulds. Could he really go from conference to conference until the end of time? The same people calling for him to be fired would likely boycott conferences. So they're just as consistent as you say they aren't.
> I really can't believe HN right now, trying to deny the fact that prop 8 passed.
So you're just making shit up as you go now?
> Let's all rewrite history, getting rid of an inconvenient fact.
Given you apparently aren't able to read things written on your screen, that's fucking golden.
> Oh, and screw political freedom too.
You're politically free, you're free to be whatever bigoted asshole you want to be. And others are free to demonstrate their disagreement, which they did with Eich.
Let me guess: you decided this just now? Right? You're quite the asshole yourself.
> And others are free to demonstrate their disagreement, which they did with Eich.
Eich is not the leader of a fucking movement!! He's a private individual, that supported a cause in private. He's not Hitler, and this is not the Night of the Long Knives here.
You are advocating mob rule and mob justice. That is a sin far worse than supporting a movement to prevent gay marriage.
ummm....no. It was in my original post to try to minimize pushback from those that take offense to anything that they disagree with or may find at any time offensive.
The question remains, however. Does he or does he not support the GLBT community. It was of such consequence to Brendan Eich that he was let go. So it must be that Chris Beard does support this community. Because we all know that having no opinion on this matter cannot stand.
Wait, is it a real question or sarcasm? You seem to switch back and forth.
> Does he or does he not support the GLBT community. It was of such consequence to Brendan Eich that he was let go.
I don't think that's an accurate description. Eich's past public participation in a particular attack on equal rights targetting that community triggered a public controversy including publicized boycotts of Mozilla, but I don't think that there is any basis for concluding that he was let go because of his stance on LGBT issues rather than his perceived inability and/or unwillingness as CEO to manage a PR issue that was affecting Mozilla. (And even that may just have been the straw that broke the camel's back -- as I recall, there were reports that he was a controversial choice with split support on the board from the outset for reasons unrelated to the LGBT issue.)
> So it must be that Chris Beard does support this community.
Or that the actual issue around Eich is more complex than the what you are trying to simplify it to.
So it wasn't because Brendan supported the traditional insituation of marriage that he was let go? He just decided one day shortly after getting the position he didn't want it?
More complex? So if Chris Beard donated to Focus on the Family (hypothetically) he would be just fine at Mozilla?
Come on, Brendan Eich would still be CEO if he didn't make that one political donation and came out supporting the community.
