If the issue with Eich was supposed to be about whether or not he was inclined to lead an inclusive Mozilla apparently looked to as a standard bearer not only for open/progressive technical values but open/progressive social values... who's more incredible naive?
The person who considers Eich's political donation to Prop 8 as a conclusive indicator he couldn't do that?
Or the person who considers his long history there as a more relevant, legible, and likely conclusive signal about how he would have run the Mozilla he helped build?
(Also, when people are constructing these ostensibly parallel hypotheticals, why does some equivalent of the latter always seem to get left out?)
In other words, you're saying that you and the engineers you know would not be even a little more likely to give your time to another organization instead of the one that appointed the person who amended the Constitution to keep blacks in the back of the bus. Fair enough. It doesn't match what I've seen, which is why I believe that organization would be in trouble. The only way to know for sure is to run a poll of software engineers.
At another point, you confuse inclusiveness towards employees vs. making employees actually want to work there. The latter is the issue. You can have an organization head work towards setting up Sharia law but treat women fairly in his workplace. That won't mean that people who support women's rights will work for him when they have plenty of other options to choose from.
The person who considers Eich's political donation to Prop 8 as a conclusive indicator he couldn't do that?
Or the person who considers his long history there as a more relevant, legible, and likely conclusive signal about how he would have run the Mozilla he helped build?
(Also, when people are constructing these ostensibly parallel hypotheticals, why does some equivalent of the latter always seem to get left out?)