(I work for Mozilla and was there when this all happened)
That is false. Only one of them quit "because of" him. You don't need to take my word for it: Stephen Shankland's piece [1] is the least-inaccurate account of what happened there.
And in fact, your statement is not even logical. Think about it: Who hires a CEO? A company's board. Now you're saying that a huge chunk of the board quit because of a hire that they themselves were responsible for making? That makes no sense.
You forgot to mention the most important and commonly misstated fact that Brendan Eich was NOT fired, and was NOT asked to resign, and was NOT "kicked out".
The false narratives that the board fired him, and also that half the board quit because of him, both directly contradict the official statement published on the Mozilla Blog, and Brendan's own words he published on Twitter:
>On April 3, 2014 Brendan Eich voluntarily stepped down as CEO of Mozilla. [...]
>Q: Was Brendan Eich fired?
>A: No, Brendan Eich resigned. Brendan himself said:
>“I have decided to resign as CEO effective April 3rd, and leave Mozilla. Our mission is bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader. I will be taking time before I decide what to do next.”
>Brendan Eich also blogged on this topic.
>Q: Was Brendan Eich asked to resign by the Board?
>A: No. It was Brendan’s idea to resign, and in fact, once he submitted his resignation, Board members tried to get Brendan to stay at Mozilla in another C-level role.
Despite that irrefutable proof of Mozilla's and Brendan's own words that he resigned of his own free will, and the Board actually wanted him to stay, GamerGate followers love to spread conspiracy theories based on those false narratives, framing Brendan as a victim and martyr, instead of respecting the human rights of the people whose marriages Brendan donated his money to destroy.
Indeed. This is very true, but I've become exhausted from repeating it ad infinitum. Six+ years is a long time in tech, and yet we're still talking about this nonsense.
That is false. Only one of them quit "because of" him. You don't need to take my word for it: Stephen Shankland's piece [1] is the least-inaccurate account of what happened there.
And in fact, your statement is not even logical. Think about it: Who hires a CEO? A company's board. Now you're saying that a huge chunk of the board quit because of a hire that they themselves were responsible for making? That makes no sense.
[1] https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-under-fire-inside-the-9-da...