On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 21:09:18 +0200, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Christian Walde
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 20:45:44 +0200, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Christian Walde
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 20:22:34 +0200, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 4:49 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
There's one argument unmentioned here, and i suspect it wasn't
mentioned yet because Tucker is too >>>>>>polite to do so. I
however, having been burned many ways by Mozilla's "governance",
have no reason >>>>>>to be polite about it.
The addition of things like Hello and Pocket in FF core* deserves
only a single description:
Hypocrisy.
Mozilla removed features that were core in FF, and would've been
core in *any* browser; while >>>>>>arguing those features could be
re-added as extensions.
I'm trying to figure out how you think this applies to Hello. The
WebRTC
functionality in Firefox that Hello makes use of is still there and
continues
to be improved.
As far as i can tell:
WebRTC is an API, which of course belongs into core.
Hello is a user interface, which should've been an extension.
Or is it not be possible to implement an extension that duplicates
Hello's functionality and makes use of the >>>>WebRTC api?
Yes, it is probably possible to implement an extension that duplicate's
Hello's functionality. I don't think it follows from that that it's
not appropriate
to ship it as part of Firefox.
Thanks for confirming that my line of thought is correct on the
implementability of Hello as an extension.
That said, you may think it does not follow, but given that you do not
explain why you think this, there is not >>much of a conversation to be
had, and your ability to convince is zero as of now.
I'm not trying to convince you. You made an assertion that I don't think
is convincing
and I said so.
I'm describing a factual reality. The parameters of such i hope i made
clear and obviously match the reality we live in. If there are parameters
i have overlooked, it is up to you to state which ones. You've tried to do
so in the following, and as such i will address:
I'm not really sure what earlier removals you're referring to,
It is completely and entirely irrelevant, but to satisfy your curiosity:
Take for example the very simple case of the RSS button.
there's absolutely
nothing contradictory about taking some features that could be
implemented in
extensions and putting them in the main product while requiring that
other features
to be implemented in extensions. Rather, it's a product judgement about
which
features are of the widest general interest and the best fit for being
part of the
main product as shipped.
If that is indeed the reason, then you might be correct. Such a reason
can, if argued and explained publicly, honestly and in good faith, be
exceptional circumstance.
However you're guessing about Mozilla's reasons.
As i've said, reasons might exist, but are both not obvious (the reasons
you stated are entirely non-obvious, and especially for Pocket the
"obvious" reason is wildly different from your guess) and have not been
stated publicly by Mozilla. Or can you refer to such?
--
With regards,
Christian Walde
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
