He just didn't have the right culture fit for Mozilla.
(Shamelessly stolen from elsewhere.)
Essentially, it's really hard to lead people who don't respect you.
We can all have a civil disagreement about whether vi or emacs is superior, or if Political Party X is better than Y. But when you specifically attack the fundamental rights of your employees and their friends / family, then refuse to apologise for it, you're simply not going to be a credible leader.
Here's the other thing - in capitalism, you have to listen to your customers. If the "Moral Majority" wants to boycott your shop/browser/TV show because your CEO isn't sufficiently deferential to their god - they can go for it.
If the business wants to succeed, it has decide whether it will be more profitable to capitulate or not.
In Mozilla's case, they have (belatedly) seen the way the world is turning. Good for them.
> He just didn't have the right culture fit for Mozilla.
I find that hard to believe, his Wikipedia page says he started working for Netscape in 1995, founded mozilla.org in 1998, and helped found the Mozilla Foundation in 2003. If it was a culture fit problem, it took a long time for them to find that out. Seems more like a lynching after he became too publicly known.
You appear to have your irony filters set too high...
The point I'm trying to make is that we see countless example of "Culture Fit" being used as a poor excuse to get rid of an employee for having the temerity to be female, gay, disabled, an ethnic minority - or anything other than the narrowly defined "bro" culture which sadly seems to infect some high-tech companies.
Yes, being fired from a powerful position because you actively tried to deny some of your employees and fellow countrymen their human rights and dignity is exactly the same as being hung from a tree for innate characteristics.
> If the business wants to succeed, it has decide whether it will be more profitable to capitulate or not.
economic blackmail is wasteful and silly. I'm an atheist are you ok with the religious attacking my livelihood as a small business owner? That's not capitalism that's the dark ages.
It's neither wasteful nor silly. It's the only avenue of protest left available to citizens in a capitalist society.
In the UK, businesses aren't allowed to discriminate when offering services to the public - you can't stick a sign up in your bar saying "No Gay/Black/Atheists Allowed."
But, as a customer, you have the absolute right to vote with your wallet. If you don't like my stance on Open Source, don't buy my products. If you hear the pub landlord cracking a homophobic joke, you can either politely ask him to change his opinion - or you start drinking somewhere else.
As an atheist myself (nice to meet you!) I wouldn't want you or me to be attacked or harassed. That hasn't happened here. Customers have said "well, if that's your attitude, I'll go elsewhere."
The only other thing we can do is ignore it - and that's simply not an ethical option for many people.
You have to differentiate between individuals deciding for themselves to go elsewhere and organized boycotts designed to ruin a person. I would hate to be a minority business owner in a society that condoned flippant use of organized boycotts.
Individuals only have power against large organisations when they collectivise. That's why big businesses are (often) anti-union.
If the imaginary Christians-Against-Internet-Explorer decide to boycott IE10 because they believe the new MS CEO is Muslim, no one is being forced into joining their misguided crusade, are they?
So, what is an organised boycott? It's individuals using strength in numbers.
The myth we're sold is "one man can make a difference." That's rarely true. Many people, acting as one, are what makes a difference.
There was nothing organised about this current situation. I don't remember anyone forming The National Committee Against This One Guy We All Hate and then asking me to pay dues.
Nope. Just a bunch of individuals expressing their collective economic might.
You're right, organised members of the KKK aren't going to eat at "Hamza's Hummus Hut" - but neither are individual racists. If they want to run him out of town - I'll take a stand against that. If they don't want to eat there, I won't force them.
(Shamelessly stolen from elsewhere.)
Essentially, it's really hard to lead people who don't respect you.
We can all have a civil disagreement about whether vi or emacs is superior, or if Political Party X is better than Y. But when you specifically attack the fundamental rights of your employees and their friends / family, then refuse to apologise for it, you're simply not going to be a credible leader.
Here's the other thing - in capitalism, you have to listen to your customers. If the "Moral Majority" wants to boycott your shop/browser/TV show because your CEO isn't sufficiently deferential to their god - they can go for it.
If the business wants to succeed, it has decide whether it will be more profitable to capitulate or not.
In Mozilla's case, they have (belatedly) seen the way the world is turning. Good for them.