Yes, pretty much. Even step 3 doesn't qualify as intolerance in most cases if it is "quiet reservation" IMO. Once you campaign, fight against, attempt to change minds and policy, etc, then I view that person as intolerant, and do not count openly calling out that intolerant behavior as intolerance itself. To do so is a semantic game and leads us away from the issue and debate. It's a rhetorical escape hatch for bigots. Regarding Eich, I do not believe one has any standing to complain about being ousted from leading an organization that exists for an ethical purpose when one is unethical, or at least seen as unethical by the community the org is there to serve. Absurd to praise an org for values and mission but argue that it's leader should be able to hold damaging values while in that role. I read the Sullivan piece and sound it spectacularly sensationalistic rhetorically. Basically a bunch of inflammatory language wrapped around the silly "taking issue with intolerance is intolerant" argument. There is an endless list of personal views, attributes, values, actions that would prevent an otherwise qualified person from being a CEO or other leadership role. People get knocked out of the running every single day across the globe. Activism to deny people equal legal rights happens to be on that list increasingly. This is good.

Edit: I should clarify that I'm aware that Eich has actually vocally complained about any if this, but the same sentiment applies to his vocal defenders.