> your "Eich chose to step down due to community pressure" line, which you made up.
You are correct. That was conjecture. I don't know the actual thoughts in your mind when you stepped down, because you won't tell me.
Right now, the only solid evidence we have is that mozilla.org blog post that you voluntarily stepped down. Unless you will renounce it, then to the public record, it will remain what is believed to be true. And anything else, "you were forced out", "you were fired", "you resigned due to pressure", etc is hearsay.
> This does not exclude other possibilities that are none of your business.
I believe it is the business of the public whether you were given an ultimatum or not. It would greatly influence how many felt toward the senior leadership of Mozilla.
> "Forced or resigned" is a false dilemma in general.
I disagree strongly. There's a world of difference between me choosing to leave my job to protect my company; and my company firing me, making me sign an NDA, and lying and saying I left voluntarily. The former is commendable (if unfortunate) on your part; the latter is absolutely reprehensible on Mozilla's part.
> Oppression does not remove agency from the victim.
It can. There was no serious option for me to move to a country with full marriage equality (the world does not have open borders - even permanently moving to Canada requires hosting by a family member, substantial capital to invest, or an asylum request); and only partial redress (state-level) were I to choose to move to, say, Massachusetts. Which also wasn't much of a possibility as my spouse did not want to leave his family behind in Ohio. But I guess you could say the latter was a matter of prioritizing.
Those ballot initiatives were definitely aimed at removing agency from gay and lesbian couples, that much is for sure.
> Can we agree on this much?
In the general case that the two can be true at once, yes. But I don't see how your resignation can possibly exist in a quantum state where you were both forced to resign and weren't. It can only be one or the other.
I can understand there being subtle hints and allusions that a firing would have been inevitable should you choose not to resign, but unless they were substantiated, they were just that. I'm not going to read between the lines to speculate on what might have happened had you chosen to stay onboard.
I'm dead serious: if you really were forced out but just can't tell me, then you have my sympathy. I never once called for you to be fired. Free speech only works when we all have it. The only thing I did, and stand by, is my own free speech to voice disapproval for your donation. I also stopped using Firefox until you had resigned.
(I do have some thoughts on money not being the same as speech, but that's a whole different issue.)
> I don't see how your resignation can possibly exist in a quantum state where you were both forced to resign and weren't. It can only be one or the other.
There's a whole lot of middle ground between absolutely forced and absolutely not forced. He could have not been absolutely forced (in that the board might not have said "Quit or be fired"), but could have lost sufficient support from the board, other executives, and/or staff that there was no realistic way to meet expectations that the board had set (implicitly or explicitly) so that it seemed likely that the situation was as if an quit-or-be-dumped threat had been made, even if it wasn't. For just one example.
HN is for many things: wasting time, trying to persuade reasonable fellow hackers of the virtues of Blub, practicing rhetoric and dialectic, etc. etc. It's not for you to cross-examine me, though. You are not entitled. Ask Mozilla if you want more info about my exit.
> I disagree strongly.
Please see my edit, adding "in general" before "remove" and "all" before "agency". I made that edit before you replied (but it seems after you cited my earlier text) because I suspected you would turn "must" to "can" on loss of agency. As you did.
Of course oppression can at the limit remove all agency, by killing the victim. Duh! But your move from "must" to "can" dodges the crucial disagreement that we seem to be having, over whether any force always and exclusively overrides a choice like resigning, or and/or other non-exclusive and exclusive alternatives.
It's nonsense to make complex human interactions involving mobs, boycotts, hidden C-suite action, and finally resignation into an either/or in every single case. Some people feel that "the mob" forced me out (whether they disagree or agree with the result). This does not mean those people all believe I was "fired".
To take another example and leave out "Oppression": did Nixon resign? Of course. Did he face force from his opponents in Congress and the press? Yes, obviously -- in the case of Congress, he faced the full force of the U.S. Constitution, up to an impeachment trial and conviction. Both force and choice were operative; no either/or.
> There's a world of difference between me choosing to leave my job to protect my company; and my company firing me, making me sign an NDA, and lying and saying I left voluntarily.
You are doing it again, right here! Use your imagination. Can you not conceive of excluded middles left out by the two alternatives you pose as if mutually exclusive and exhaustive of all possibilities? I think you can. You should, just as a matter of intellectual honesty and rigor, even if I keep mum. Using my silence as justification for your fallacy is a further fallacy.
You're right. And in this case, I wasn't. I responded to someone who said you were fired with an official statement that contradicted it. You joined into the discussion with, "you don't know and I don't have to tell you."
Which is fine! In that case, I will continue to correct anyone who says you were fired by pointing to the only official statement on the matter that says you resigned voluntarily. Is that fair? Surely you can't blame me for not relying on secret information I don't know.
> It's nonsense to make complex human interactions involving mobs, boycotts, hidden C-suite action, and finally resignation into an either/or in every single case.
I'm definitely not making that claim in every case, only in this one case. I agree with your premise in general.
> did Nixon resign? Of course.
It was inevitable that he would have been impeached had he not. There was no indication that Mozilla did anything but stand behind you the entire time.
I do understand the point you're trying to make here. But please understand that I can't hold Mozilla's board in contempt for something without any evidence or even statements on the matter. And you don't want to give them and that's fine. Just, as such, the record stands that you left of your own volition.
> Can you not conceive of excluded middles left out by the two alternatives you pose as if mutually exclusive and exhaustive of all possibilities?
No, I can't imagine a scenario where you were both made to resign, yet Mozilla was not lying when they said you left voluntarily.
I am acutely aware that there was a huge reason for you to, even if I can't speculate that it had anything to do with your actual decision. But the protests and boycotts were a clear elephant in the room.
Like you said with agency, you should have still had it despite the protests. The protestors had zero control over the Mozilla board. Yes, you staying could have damaged the brand more (I doubt it would have done much damage, but that's a separate discussion.)
We're not making progress so let's try this from the other side: we both agree those calling for your firing were in the wrong, and should not have been listened to. I'll even go further and say it was wrong of sites like OK Cupid to use their site as a tool to boycott Mozilla by blocking your browser - as that forced their users into the boycott. But do you agree that the people voicing their displeasure with your donation and deciding not to use Firefox because you were made the CEO had a right to do so?
Discounting the two things we both agree on (calls for firing, websites blocking Mozilla), what would you have wished were handled differently? What else do you feel was unfair?
If secretly Mozilla led you to believe you would be ousted soon without resigning, then that would be on the board, and only the board, yes? And if that information remains secret, then we the public can't hold them accountable for that, can we?
...
And as for me ... it seems we're never going to get past discussing a donation you made eight years ago. So when it inevitably comes up again that you were 'fired for your beliefs', how about this?
I will respond that according to the only official statement from mozilla.org, you voluntarily resigned. I will then link to your discussions with me and state that you claim there are circumstances that are not public, and that people can make up their own mind on whatever that statement means from there. But again, that the only official record refutes their claim.
Would you accept that? It's really not my goal to keep annoying you (or anyone else) here. I just don't want to see conjecture passed off as fact. Especially not on HN.
Do you see how you used the "He was fired!" refutation (which I refute all the time by saying I resigned) as carte blanche to go make unjustified assertions, inaccurate and incomplete paraphrases, and three other things?
> I can't hold Mozilla's board in contempt
Who asked you to hold anyone in contempt? Are you the judge now? And note the either/or again: either me, or them. No third or fourth alternative?
Here are some more unjustified assertions or questions implying facts not in evidence that you've made:
* "The protestors had zero control over the Mozilla board."
* "...had a right to do so?" (totally irrelevant and I never said otherwise; when did you stop beating your spouse?)
* "... we both agree on ...." (we haven't agreed on those and they're irrelevant again)
* "What else do you feel was unfair?" (I never said "unfair", I'm here to object to you Making Stuff Up)
Do you see what I mean? You're all over the map with unrelated and unjustified claims and questions implying I said things I never said.
Just consider your "He could have stayed if he wanted to." Why'd you write that? I don't mean what you imagined or guessed or inferred predicated on assumptions or beliefs and nothing else. I mean what needs did it serve to say something you can't possibly know, as if it were an incontrovertible fact.
> One example: "He could have stayed if he wanted to." You don't know that and can't really know it, so stop saying it.
As I keep saying, the only publicly available evidence is that your resignation was voluntary. Voluntary implies optional. Optional implies you could stay. There's no leap of logic here.
Yes, there could be behind-the-scenes NDAs and private events that meant you couldn't have. But unless you provide any shred of evidence, then I can't go on those.
Imagine this like a court of law. Your vague hints of knowledge I am not privy to would be inadmissable evidence. Because of course it would be.
> (which I refute all the time by saying I resigned)
Well there you go! There's our answer. You weren't fired, you resigned. Right from the man himself :D
> Who asked you to hold anyone in contempt?
Who asked you who could get married and who couldn't?
I have the right to hold any opinion I want about anyone. It's just an opinion; it has no authority. People in this thread are mad at Mozilla, claiming they fired you. If that is true, I want to join them in their anger. But I want evidence first.
> No third or fourth alternative?
Sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse. I can't think of a third or fourth alternative. I'm not the brightest bulb out there, but I like to think I'm reasonably capable of imagining multiple possible scenarios. But I've got nothing here.
> "The protestors had zero control over the Mozilla board."
Come on, now you're just messing with me. Nobody here believes people on the internet shouting at you had the power to force Mozilla's board to act the way they wanted. It's a company, not an elected body. You yourself made that argument about oppression and agency. They may not have liked their options, but nobody held a gun to anyone's head and forced them to fire you. Even if keeping you meant burning the whole company to the ground, they still had full autonomy to make their own choice.
Or are you going to go reductio ad absurdum and tell me that I don't (and can't) know if any protestors held a gun to your board members' heads? :P
The rest ... fair enough. It seems I need to preface everything with "it's my reasonable assumption that ..." when speaking with you ;)
> Just consider your "He could have stayed if he wanted to." Why'd you write that?
If your resignation was voluntary, that implies you could have stayed. If you couldn't, it would thus not be voluntary. Because that is what the word voluntary means. It implies you made a choice. If you were saying you chose to resign instead of being fired, then you didn't make a choice, you were fired. Calling that a voluntary resignation is bullshit.
> I mean what needs did it serve to say something you can't possibly know, as if it were an incontrovertible fact.
Our basic communication breakdown here is that I am treating fact as "what's in the public record"; and you are treating fact as "you were actually there for it." Yours is obviously superior. But you won't share the latter with me, again which is fine! But if you don't do so, then don't blame me for treating the former as fact. It's no different than the way a court of law would treat it. I'm not being unreasonable here. I can't read the tea leaves and divine what really happened, nor can anyone else. That doesn't mean we can't ever talk about it. There are lots of unknowns in the world, and I am following the way reasonable people discuss and interpret those things as best they can.
You are going in circles. I'm cutting it off right here:
> the only publicly available evidence is that your resignation was voluntary. Voluntary implies optional. Optional implies you could stay. There's no leap of logic here.
You're wrong: "voluntary" does not imply "optional" in any scenario where the possible outcomes are not mutually exclusive and exhaustive. It's as simple as that. The old saw about the sergeant calling for volunteers and saying if you don't put your hand up, then you'll be "volunteered", comes to mind.
> Well there you go! There's our answer. You weren't fired, you resigned. Right from the man himself :D
I suggest you write less and read more. I've said I resigned since I in fact did resign on 3 April 2014, on my blog, in a statement to Mozilla employees, and on HN every N months, including on this very HN page today. If you didn't read any of those statements, then you simply weren't paying attention. If you read and ignored, bad on you. Either way, you've used up my patience, and probably many others'.
My sincere thanks for your patience. I'm sorry we couldn't reach an understanding, but I do appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me today.
It's truly not my intention to misrepresent what happened nor your own words. But I honestly can't form a definitive answer based on what you've been willing to say. Nor do I feel this is an issue that can just be ignored.
Several of your points did reach me: I will try to take your advice and be more explicit in future replies on this topic that I make, and I'll certainly link to your own comments here if I do. But I'm really hoping this situation will stop coming up in every other Mozilla story on HN, so that I won't have to.
This is not what you asked, though. You asked if something were voluntary (and assumed optional meaning disjoint outcomes for the given action). You used "had zero control". Again, the range of possibilities is bigger than "zero control" vs. "gun to head".
Enough with the false dilemmas, already!
If you are serious about talking 1:1, DM me on Twitter.
I feel like you're really looking for any faults in my expressions. Yes, my language is a bit overly embellished and colorful. But I've been hoping you'd at least get the idea I was trying to convey each time. It appears to me that I'm being a lot more black-and-white than you are in this case -- but again, that's me trying to characterize your position here.
As for Twitter, I think you can only DM people that follow you. And I definitely wouldn't want to inflict that upon you :P
I appreciate the offer, though. So, let me ask some trusted colleages to review this public chat to give a second opinion on my failings here. It'll give you a well-deserved break in the meantime, and time for me to reflect.
If something interesting comes of that, I'll try to draw a final conclusion and perhaps I'll send you a standard Twitter message to that for your thoughts, if you have time and don't mind.
You are correct. That was conjecture. I don't know the actual thoughts in your mind when you stepped down, because you won't tell me.
Right now, the only solid evidence we have is that mozilla.org blog post that you voluntarily stepped down. Unless you will renounce it, then to the public record, it will remain what is believed to be true. And anything else, "you were forced out", "you were fired", "you resigned due to pressure", etc is hearsay.
> This does not exclude other possibilities that are none of your business.
I believe it is the business of the public whether you were given an ultimatum or not. It would greatly influence how many felt toward the senior leadership of Mozilla.
> "Forced or resigned" is a false dilemma in general.
I disagree strongly. There's a world of difference between me choosing to leave my job to protect my company; and my company firing me, making me sign an NDA, and lying and saying I left voluntarily. The former is commendable (if unfortunate) on your part; the latter is absolutely reprehensible on Mozilla's part.
> Oppression does not remove agency from the victim.
It can. There was no serious option for me to move to a country with full marriage equality (the world does not have open borders - even permanently moving to Canada requires hosting by a family member, substantial capital to invest, or an asylum request); and only partial redress (state-level) were I to choose to move to, say, Massachusetts. Which also wasn't much of a possibility as my spouse did not want to leave his family behind in Ohio. But I guess you could say the latter was a matter of prioritizing.
Those ballot initiatives were definitely aimed at removing agency from gay and lesbian couples, that much is for sure.
> Can we agree on this much?
In the general case that the two can be true at once, yes. But I don't see how your resignation can possibly exist in a quantum state where you were both forced to resign and weren't. It can only be one or the other.
I can understand there being subtle hints and allusions that a firing would have been inevitable should you choose not to resign, but unless they were substantiated, they were just that. I'm not going to read between the lines to speculate on what might have happened had you chosen to stay onboard.
I'm dead serious: if you really were forced out but just can't tell me, then you have my sympathy. I never once called for you to be fired. Free speech only works when we all have it. The only thing I did, and stand by, is my own free speech to voice disapproval for your donation. I also stopped using Firefox until you had resigned.
(I do have some thoughts on money not being the same as speech, but that's a whole different issue.)