> Maybe to you, but others argue that it's bad for society etc.
> It wasn't so "settled" in 2008 when Eich donated and that cause
> won the election. I'm not even sure a significant portion calling
> for his resignation would have supported an apology, if he
> decided to change his position.
I think a lot of people would gladly have accepted a change of heart. I know I would have - perhaps for selfish reasons, since I used to think gay marriage wasn't the best idea. [1] Certainly the public has shown a willingness to vote for politicians who've changed their minds.
> This is the opposite of a free, healthy, diverse society.
The executives of a company are held to a different standard because they represent their companies to a much greater extent than the average employee.
I do not expect every Mozilla employee or contributor to subscribe to a specific set of political views, and I've never heard anybody calling for such a thing when it comes to Mozilla nor any other company. But I'm not going to be eager to support a corporation whose CEO has views I dislike. As we saw, a lot of other people felt that way as well.
Think about it: nobody would really blink an eye if they saw their Pepsi delivery man drinking a bottle of Coke - but surely we can understand how it would be big news if Pepsi's CEO drank Coke in public, and if it kept happening it might lead people to question whether or not he/she is the best person to lead PepsiCo.
> all the same legal rights to polygamous marriages:
> it's maybe too easy to "abuse" by marrying yourself
> to every friend you want to give a piece of your
> insurance coverage, tax breaks, etc.
Yeah, it would certainly be a logistical nightmare! Imagine all the software that would need to be rewritten. We are probably talking about a mess to rival Y2K. Relative to the Y2K thing, less software would need to be changed. But the affected software would need to be changed pretty drastically.
_________
[1] I thought legally recognized civil unions were a better idea, but then I decided it'd be "separate but equal" all over again and that didn't work the first time.
I do not expect every Mozilla employee or contributor to subscribe to a specific set of political views, and I've never heard anybody calling for such a thing when it comes to Mozilla nor any other company. But I'm not going to be eager to support a corporation whose CEO has views I dislike. As we saw, a lot of other people felt that way as well.
Think about it: nobody would really blink an eye if they saw their Pepsi delivery man drinking a bottle of Coke - but surely we can understand how it would be big news if Pepsi's CEO drank Coke in public, and if it kept happening it might lead people to question whether or not he/she is the best person to lead PepsiCo.
Yeah, it would certainly be a logistical nightmare! Imagine all the software that would need to be rewritten. We are probably talking about a mess to rival Y2K. Relative to the Y2K thing, less software would need to be changed. But the affected software would need to be changed pretty drastically._________
[1] I thought legally recognized civil unions were a better idea, but then I decided it'd be "separate but equal" all over again and that didn't work the first time.