I don't particularly think the politics of an executive defines the corporate culture of a company, so I'm not boycotting Mozilla just because the CEO has made some questionable political contributions.

However this post sends the wrong message for one reason - It is left unsigned by the CEO or anybody else in the organization. The omission of any sort of statement on his behalf speaks more than had Mozilla not addressed the concerns at all. At the very least, some high-level executive could have signed the post. The fact it isn't signed by anybody makes it seem like what could be a hollow promise.

The fact that Brendan hasn't publicly changed his position or donated $1000+ to an LGBT organization (to offset his Prop 8 donation) means that this must be a deeply held belief of his. I trust Mozilla will keep him on a short leash, but it's still troubling.

I think this statement is unnecessary. Eich's personal opinion on the matter has never been imposed or interfered with official Mozilla business. It's one of the most ethical companies I know.

Leadership views or behavior can influence corporate culture in subtle ways. For example, by simply lending credence to the private views of others in the company, that the bigwigs agree with them. People tend to align themselves with the viewpoints of people in power, either subconsciously, or consciouslessly (when brown nosing).

You could say that the private views of Chick-Fil-A's owner do not impact how the company does business, but I think it would be naive to say that it doesn't have some effect, both on the employees, and on people external to the company.

Or to give a non-political example, if your CEO believes the best way to motivate people is to scream insults at them, tell them their work sucks, or otherwise keep them in a state of fear, then, even if it isn't official company policy to do so, that management 'culture' will percolate down to middle level managers, so that suddenly you have a whole hierarchy of aggressive, alpha-male scream-bags who think they're the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.

I am happy that Mozilla seems to be very diverse and that the staff are openly expressing their feelings that it is a non-issue, but publishing something like this seems pretty weird, like they are overcompensating. I also wonder about all the people who aren't in the public eye who wouldn't write big long blog posts, does everyone at Mozilla feel that it's just swell?

That statement is neither addressing the issue (some people have deeply held problems with _the person of the new CTO_) nor giving any insight on whether that was even considered this kind of reaction before choosing. It does in no way attempt to speak to the people that were hit badly by this.

Your opinion whether this outrage is justified or not doesn't matter. It is there and Mozilla should deal with it.

> even in states where it is not mandated

The whole statement suggests that Mozilla believe treating employees fairly and equally (at least on the specific point of insurance) is somehow remarkably good of them.

I found this a very negative statement which makes me think less of Mozilla.

> Mozilla provides the same level of benefits and advantages to domestic partners as we do to married couples across the United States, even in states where it is not mandated.

That is awesome, actions speak louder than words.

undefined

This post is literally a statement that Mozilla won't seek to actively violate California employment law. That's the entire substance. Oddly enough, I'm not convinced that rates applause.

personal beliefs of people in power do affect how they wield that power. Opposite is true only for machines [not for long though].

Coming from a country where this statement would simply mean "we're obeying the law", I'm not particularly impressed by this cold and formal statement.

It about as strong a stance as saying "we provide clean toilets".