> Do you need to support marriage equality to contribute to Mozilla as an
> employee, volunteer, or in a leadership role?
> A: No. There is no litmus test to work at Mozilla.

Who am I supposed to believe, you or my lying eyes? Your CEO is a former and all the white wash in the world won’t fool anyone who has been around Fortune 500 style corporate management or a political campaign at any level caught in a scandal (and I’ve been around both). All that was missing in the resignation was a desire on his part to spend more time with his family.

As I said above, I’d be much less frustrated by all of this if Mozilla would just be honest about it and admit:

1. Politics controls who can work at or above a certain level at Mozilla
2. Mozilla is willing to cave to small protests they agree with (on the whole) and to stand up to those who they disagree with in face of a larger protest.
3. They are cowardly enough to claim they had no control on the effects of the small protest in #2 but are bold enough to do that while trying to reverse the effects of the large one.

Mozilla did resist and is still resisting. From https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation :
> Do you need to support marriage equality to contribute to Mozilla as an
> employee, volunteer, or in a leadership role?
> A: No. There is no litmus test to work at Mozilla.

“Why should we unilaterally disarm?” Don’t disarm, just pick someone else’s neighbourhood to raze. Someone who isn’t just trying to do some good in the world.

Where did I say or imply it was OK to be affected by any group of people particularly?

It was a rhetorical question because I completely agree with your point b.

that the ease with which we can be bullied is correlated to a
topic/side’s relevance to the people that make up the community (and
sadly, probably the corporation in particular).

The Corporation hasn’t even bothered to respond to the critics of the “resignation” beyond an insulting FAQ that is 100% true except for the lies by omission. At the same time they apologized for not acting quickly enough about the promotion. When we ask if that means they should have forced him out sooner the reply is “no, we should have started a conversation sooner.”

Instead of responding to critics we have the “reinstall Firefox campaign” which is so respectful of people who they want back it boils down to “you don’t understand what happened and if you don’t believe our story 100% you’re close minded an not worth engaging”.

A much smaller group “bullied” Mozilla Corp into doing something you admit was aligned with the majority view in Mozilla while the larger group isn’t even worth a “hey, can we talk about it.”

Mozilla chose to allow itself to be bullied because it was a way to attain the goals many in the community wanted without having to take responsibility. Even your post is a continuation.

Why can’t the lot of you be honest and admit you believe employment should be conditional on belief. I suspect I know the reason but I’d like to hear your explanation.

Where did I say or imply it was OK to be affected by any group of people particularly? I tried to make the point that it’s (a) bad that we can be bullied, and (b) that the ease with which we can be bullied is correlated to a topic/side’s relevance to the people that make up the community (and sadly, probably the corporation in particular). I don’t think either of these are good, but I don’t really see how we can usefully fix them, either.

Meanwhile, I am unsure how we would or wouldn’t “do the same with the uninstall movement”. Concretely, what are you suggesting would redeem/help us?

the outside world doesn’t judge us by our rules, it judges us by their own laws and personal value systems.

You make several statements along these lines and I have one question.

Why is it okay for Mozilla to be affected by one group of people, the LGBT community, but not another? If you wish to blame outside pressure for the resignation and claim you could do nothing then why not do the same with the uninstall movement? After all, it’s outside forces not judging you by your internal standards but their own so what can you do?

The seeming contradiction is easily resolved if you realize that the majority of people in the Community and certainly the Corporation agree with one group and disagree with the other. However, having decided to bow to external judgement both the Community and the Corporation have to accept, like it or not, you’ve given everyone who wants to do so and try to influence you to join in.

Now, you probably say “but my issue X” (inclusiveness in your case) “is
so important that you should stand up for it no matter what the cost to
Mozilla’s actual mission”. Do you hear how similar that sounds to the
message of your opponents (where X = “marriage equality”)?

Mozilla has shown it’s willing to embrace political positions based on public pressure. Why should I reject the chance to influence them if those I’m opposed to did not? Why should we unilaterally disarm?

We did not open this front in the culture war. Mozilla did not resist but responded passively to attempts to drag Mozilla into the culture wars.

Your employer has, admittedly passively, decided to pick sides. Why shouldn’t we try to move it to ours?

They’ve not asked for forgiveness – nor.thi.k they’ve done anything wrong.

Die Mozilla.