On 1/7/2014, 2:02 PM, Bob Clary wrote:
On 01/07/2014 10:04 AM, Mike Connor wrote:
On the other hand, we have to make sure we’re being pragmatic about
our goals. Many have argued that things like quirks mode,
document.all detection and other compatibility hacks were against web
standards, but they were necessary for adoption. When we first
announced a revenue deal with Google, many accused us of “selling
out” or even being corrupted by money. But without both of those,
where would we be? We needed revenue to scale and compete, we needed
enough compatibility with enough web content that we could grow
enough share to convince more sites to target standards compliances.
I’m all for doing the right thing in as many cases as possible, but
we should also be very intentional about how those decisions impact
the big picture and the overall mission.
I haven't spoken up on this subject yet but feel I must respond.
Although on the surface, this appears to be a reasonable response I have
to disagree. I believe you are conflating engineering and financial
decisions with a decision that violated our users' trust.
I second what Bob said here. I don't think that analogy is valid for
the case we're discussing here.
Cheers,
Ehsan
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
