It looks like you copy/pasted from somewhere that didn't preserve your spacing and paragraphs. It seems like you're making some good points, but in this format it is *really* hard on the eyes. Could you fix up the formatting and resend?
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 6:18 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been aroundMozilla a long time, but I'm not an employee, what keeps > me comingback is my passion. It's also what keeps me frustrated. But > needlessto say, I have over the years, accumulated my own insights that > Ibelieve are overlooked and this comes at a cost to both Firefox andMozilla. > The attitude ofMozilla is that development (coding) rules the roost, but > if you lookaround, how's that working out for you? That's the attitude of > acompany that is self-sustaining and quite frankly that's not anaccolade > that Mozilla has to its name. What should be ruling theroost at Mozilla is > engagement and that's the one place where Mozillaconsistently falls down. > One of thefundamental goals of Mozilla is to ensure the web remains free, > openand accessible to everyone everywhere. Any individual that wants > tocreate any application that can render standards should be able toaccess > the internet in all of its glory. It's a hard unappreciatedroad but it's a > road that Mozilla walks upon. > When Microsoft wassubverting the web with Internet Explorer, Firefox was > there to fightit back and provide us a better tomorrow, not just for the > users onWindows, but Mozilla provided the foundation to ensure that anyone > onany platform could access and use the full potential of the worldwide web. > Firefox should havegiven birth to the Mozilla platform. The Mozilla > platform should havebeen a basic UI and a bunch of APIs and any developer > should havebeen able to create an application and plug the guts of > thatapplication into the Mozilla platform and have that application runon > any OS that the Mozilla platform supported. Thunderbird shouldhave been the > shinning example of that platform at work. By switchingout most of the > functionality of Firefox for Thunderbird, Mozillashould have had a low > maintenance application that was a proof ofconcept of the viability of the > Mozilla platform. By virtueThunderbird should be available for Windows, > Linux, OSX and Android.We failed to bring that to fruition. In failing to > do so, we failedto create an ecosystem that would bring more contributors > to theMozilla platform and by association Firefox. Imagine things > likeLibreOffice, Jdownloader, qBittorrent, Corebird, GIMP, etc running > onthe Mozilla platform. That was how sustainability was supposed to > becreated, by becoming the bedrock of open source development. > Recently Mozillamade a tough call that made many turn their heads. It was > the call tosupport DRM in Firefox. The reality is that this was the right > call.It may have sucked and may continue to suck but it remains the > rightcall. We decided to partner with Adobe to ensure that the needs ofthe > evolved internet could be met by users of Firefox. However we'vegone about > this in the oddest of ways. Instead of creating an API andputting the > responsibility on Adobe to ensure that not a singleFirefox user is left > behind, we have instead decided to create morework for Mozilla and embark > on a course that requires us to staggerout what we've recognised as > fundamental functionality for the modernday internet with Windows leading > the charge. This isn't what westand for nor what we believe in. Any > discussions we had with Adobeshould've ensured that all of our users were > to get the ability tostream Netflix at once. > Firefox is supposedto stand for open. It's supposed to be the > counter-measure thatensures that no one corporation is able to manipulate > the internet.Yet in attempting to chase that goal in its name, we seem to > bethrowing the actual nut and bolts of that goal out of the window.Case in > point is Firefox for iOS. In our failure to engage a wideenough community, > rather than prevent the subversion of webkit ofderivatives by lobbying our > parliamentary representatives for an openiOS that would allow Firefox to > exist as intended, we've decided tofurther entrench the dominance of webkit > and its derivatives in theinternet. We're literally selling our soul for > numbers/users. At whatcost? It's our failure to again create and engage the > community thatsees Google requiring that Chrome is bundled as the default > on anyAndroid device that wants to come preloaded with the Play Store. > We are horrible atcommunity engagement. We have raised the bar as high as > we possiblecould in order to ensure that our community shrinks as much > aspossible. We believe that by holding a few summits a few times ayear, > we're doing something great but in reality, we're an internetcompany and > that's where our strength should lay. The hurdles tobecome a Mozillian are > too high. Everything we do in our home patchis horrible and antiquated. The > mailing list as an open and viablemeans of following anything is gone. It's > a remnant of the past. Itevolved into forums and yet we have all these > mailing lists becauseapparently we like to make it as hard for everyone as > possible.Bugzilla is just 'ugh', you know this, I know this. The > separationbetween discussion of a bug discussion about a bug is too wide. > As asoftware company, we need to realise that the mailing lists andBugzilla > are two our first points of contact. They shouldn't behorrible to use and > they shouldn't be hurdles. In fact, they shouldbe a single entity. > Anybody andeverybody should be able to access this lobby of Mozilla and > discussanything and everything. Discussion about a bug should take place > onthe bug. Yes, it seems like it would be messy for people wanting towork > on a bug, but there should simply be a toggle that hidesnon-technical > comments. Everyone should be welcomed and embraced inthe same place. > A pre-requisite forworking at Mozilla should be a desire to work within > the communityand most importantly with the community. If an employee > doesn't wantto teach or discuss a position/decision they shouldn't be a > part ofMozilla. Engaging one person and making one person feel like they > arebeing heard, even if they are wrong, could mean that personcontributing > something that can further the growth of Mozilla. Yes,in some regards it is > tedious, but necessary. I myself am subscribedto bugs where years later > people are asking for some implementationsto be reversed. However I am not > saying that every reply needs ananswer or that conversations never expire > but I am saying for thetime that the conversation is ongoing, anyone that's > taken the timeto engage an organisation the size of Mozilla should feel > like theirvoice does matter. > In regards toBugzilla, the failure of the software and perhaps our > approach isthat we recognise coders above all else. Designers and testers > bedamned! We don't show nearly enough respect to the non-coders andthat's > saddening. If someone files a bug but a developer has comealong and posted > some code in another bug, if anyone evenacknowledged your bug in the first > place, you're going to get itduped over. Code is movable, the fact that > patches can't be moved toanother bug is a failing of Mozilla, but the fact > that someone tooktheir time to engage us and file that bug can't. Those > people shouldalways be recognised, in fact those people should be lauded. > Becauseeven if it's a utopian train of thought, that bug could be the > bugthat leads them to learn something that has traditionally beenconsidered > tangible by Mozilla, i.e. code. > In failing us all,Bugzilla can't merge bugs, can't move patches, can't > host discussion,can't produce daily digests, can't produce summaries and > most damningat all, can't serve mobile content. Remember what I said > aboutdelivering content to everyone. How is it that as a company who'svery > raison d'êtreof the flagship product is about providing a window, aplatform > to consume the content of the internet, we neglect to ensurethat the > products that facilitate that can be consumed by everyoneindependent of the > device they use. The lack of mobile accessibilityat this company is nothing > short of damning, whether it's Bugzilla orPlanet Mozilla or even > Nightly.Mozilla.org. We neglect our very meansto grow our reach, our very > means to engage. Another example of thisis our failure to have enough > people triaging bugs, the goal shouldalways be to have no unconfirmed bugs > and yet anyone that's beenaround Mozilla a while will have a large number > of unconfirmed bugs,which are simply examples of our inability to show the > respect to theefforts of people attempting to engage us. > Mozilla should beabout providing a platform for people with a passion to > embrace thosepassions. Whether they're designers, coders or whatever. To > succeed,we can't want to be or replicate the likes of Apple or Google > butrather do it the Mozilla way. We have a contributor that's > passionateabout both Ubuntu and Firefox, that's great, Mozilla is the > perfectmarriage. We'll embrace you and grow you and give the platform > youdeserve to further Firefox on a Ubuntu from a usability point of viewand > you'll teach us things. The same goes for Windows, OSX andAndroid. We'll > not sit in our ivory tower of Apple products and talkdown to you, we'll > marry our knowledge to take us all forward. We arethe home of a unique set > of coders, designers, testers and communityofficials that want to teach and > want to engage. The type of usersthat aren't particularly suited to the > likes of Google or Apple. > Design engagement issomewhere we are horrid. We're discombobulated. Take > for example'share', we use a share icon on desktop that is a generic share > icon.One that acts as a means to replace the various little > buttonssprinkled around the internet. Yet on Android we use that same > shareicon for Firefox sync services. It doesn't take a User > InteractionDesigner to tell you that's confusing. There's no need for > ambiguityand yet to raise that to the point of actually getting > somethingsorted out is practically impossible. Even if you go as far as > tosubmit alternative artwork. In failing our users in simple > andstraight-forward things like that, we fail ourselves, we fail Firefoxand > we fail Mozilla. > In order to takeMozilla forward it's time we actually took Mozilla > forward. We needmore emphasis on all things user-facing. We need to invest > more intriage, evangelism and all round engagement. We need to invest > inensuring that the tools we use not only work but are accessible. It'stime > to put the mailing lists and Bugzilla to bed and come up withsomething > that's easier to use and takes pointers from the evolutionof internet based > communications systems of the past five years.Planet Mozilla should be more > akin to HackerNews or Slashdot. Or wecould just continue to stagnate. > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
