Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Appoints Former Marketing Head Interim CEO
itwbennett (1594911) writes "Following the contentious and ultimately failed appointment of Brendan Eich as CEO last month, the Mozilla Corporation has appointed Chris Beard to the board of directors and made him interim CEO. Beard starting working as chief marketing officer for Mozilla in 2004, and oversaw the launch of its current browser, Firefox, in 2005. Beard also managed the launches of Firefox on Android and the Firefox OS for mobile phones."
See the official announcement. Quoting: "We began exploring the idea of Chris joining the Board of Directors some months ago. Chris has been a Mozillian longer than most. He’s been actively involved with Mozilla since before we shipped Firefox 1.0, he’s guided and directed many of our innovative projects, and his vision and sense of Mozilla is equal to anyone’s. I have relied on his judgement and advice for nearly a decade. This is an excellent time for Chris to bring his understanding of Mozilla to the Board."
Marketing begins to run things.
Not to be "that guy" but I do kind of chuckle that there are connotations to the man's last name.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Congress needs to establish a commission of inquiry to help us identify people who don't agree with gay marriage, so they can be outed and ostracized. You know the routine: "Are you, or have you ever been, a conservative/orthodox/fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, or Jew?"
As we find these scumbags, we can work to deny them the right to start businesses in our cities like Rahm Emmanuel did in Chicago. Some of them are artisans: we can attempt to commission artistic works in conflict with their beliefs, and sue them into oblivion when they refuse. We can pressure them to resign from their jobs.
As recent Obama voters, it's not like we're huge hypocrites or anything. Please understand that the Democratic party is about democracy -- that's why we rejoice that California's popularly-voted Proposition 8 was overturned by a few activist judges. And we're about tolerance -- that's why we're trying to drive Christians, Muslims, and Jews out of public life by destroying their ability to hold jobs or participate in commerce.
I and 5 others deleted Mozilla and moved to Chrome. It felt weird after all these years to not have Firefox but we voted with our feet. It's not even a gay thing, it's a "we are sick of bullies and hypocrites" thing.
In one of the earlier Eich threads, I speculated that he was kicked out less because of his former gay marriage-related politics (he did, after all, indicate he wouldn't change Mozilla's LGBT-related policies) and more because the board wanted someone who could better monetize Mozilla. Don't forget, the board members that quit over Eich's appointment didn't quit due to the LGBT nonsense, they quit because they wanted someone "outside the organization who could provide a new business strategy."
With this new appointment, it sounds like I was right: Eich was kicked out not over the Twitter whine-storm, but due to internal politics that want to see Mozilla turned into a money-making "product."
Losing Eich is going to be the worst thing to ever happen to Mozilla, mark my words.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
One wonders whether Mr. Beard had to do a lie detector run to prove his loyalty the cause(s) du jour.
Now that it's become the norm for getting people fired for holding opposing views to yerself, how about organising a boycott of the following individuals: Chloe Valerlidi, Chris McAvoy, Christie Koehler, Jessica Klein, Jess Klein, John Bevan, Sydney Moyer (ref) or failing that having them locked in a room and made listen to Alex Jones for ever.
"Congress needs to establish a commission of inquiry to help us identify people who don't agree with gay marriage"
..
And we also need to identify people with no sense of humour
You distort facts to imply that they mean something other than what they mean, then act like you expect us to believe your "interpretation". For example, I don't really care what the Democratic party claims - I don't vote any party's line (nor do I support Obama generally speaking, except by comparison to some), and I look at voting records instead of claimed positions - but I doubt you'll find many on either side of the aisle who disagree with the claim that they support the constitution. The constitution explicitly gives the Judicial branch the ability to do what it did to Proposition 8 (overturn it on the basis of higher law). This is to prevent the tyranny of the majority over a disliked minority group, which is one of the obvious failures of a pure democracy. As for "activist judges", you do realize that 5 of the 9 current justices were Republican presidential nominations, right?
Oh, and lots of people who call themselves "orthodox" or "fundamentalist" members of the religions you listed are fine with gay marriage. *Your* view might be that this is inherently contradictory, but their view is that however unrighteous those people are is a matter between them and God but secular law should be fair to all, or that a God of love would not turn His back on somebody on account of who they love, or any of many other arguments. You will probably find many more such people like that than you will find people who believe that the wrathful or gluttonous are nearly so bad, and that (heterosexual) adulterers deserve death. As such, it is quite obvious that religious folk can go about their daily lives without trying to enforce their religious beliefs on others. If you personally cannot, that is a failure of you personally, not of society or even of religion.
Oh, and the bit about tolerance? You really didn't think that part through, did you... it's about creating a tolerant society, not about personally tolerating everything. You present a false dichotomy: tolerate everything including intolerance, or don't be "about tolerance". Try this thought on for size: "we advocate tolerance towards every individual's nature, but oppose those who choose to be intolerant of the nature of others." It may help some people to think of it as advocating tolerance towards the ways in which God created us, and opposing those who are intolerant of some of God's creations. After all, sin is supposed to be about (making the wrong) choice, right? Are we not innocent and pure, until we choose to be otherwise? Well, religious belief is a choice. Sexual orientation is not.
Finally, there's the fact that you cite Fox News, which is just stupid around here. Even assuming that the story was both accurate and unbiased (having read both sides, Fox's account is generally the first but far from the second), that's just asking for trouble. The stories were widely reported; you can find better sources than that.
For the first story, Emmanuel is, to the best of my knowledge (though IANAL), not allowed to deny or revoke business licenses on the grounds of an implied intention to discriminate; an actual act of discrimination or at least a policy requiring it would be required first.
For the second story, that's straightforward: if you run a business open to the public, you are not permitted to discriminate against certain classes of people and refuse them service. This has probably been law since before you were born, in the case of racial discrimination (incidentally, at least one religion in the US held that black skin was the "mark of Cain" and thus they were justified in refusing to interact with them) and for that matter in the case of religion (which, unlike skin color or sexual orientation, is a matter of choice) or several other classifications. Oregon had simply expanded the list of classes against which a public business may not discriminate to include sexual orientation. If "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" had in fact been a Christian bakery - that is, a religious entity only open to Christians - they would probably have won thei
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Why? No one cares. You won't be missed.
Required reading for internet skeptics