|
There is always a back-and-forth
between how much the leadership announces a plan and how much
there is a community-based process, with early statements of
what's in the air and the ability for those who are interested
and can get involved in a productive way to do so.
This time I did the latter. Some time when I do the former I
expect to get the opposite concern -- that I decided who gets to
participate, worked on a plan and have no presented a "done
deal."
I opted for the former this time because in general I think
Mozilla has moved towards the part of the spectrum where our
operating model is affected quite a bit by what might happen in
the press. Doing this makes for a much more polished public
presentation. The loss of community-based engagement in the
creative stages seems quite real to me. I'd like to find ways to
avoid that.
mitchell
On 12/3/15 8:09 AM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
I'm just going to add that Mitchell's email while we u
see stand what she said I think the messaging could have been
different. I'm unsure if PR was consulted but the end result has
been very negative media for Thunderbird as a project and Mozilla
across media in all countries.
I don't even know why it was necessary to email Mozilla Governance
since nothing is being proposed yet technically. Why not reach out
to Thunderbird Council and other stakeholders? It seems like this
message created the perfect recipe for FUD when nothing is
changing today or likely in the near future.
It is great to finally hear what's going on or what Mozilla
leadership thinks but I don't think the world needed to know all
this until more things were certain and there was a game plan in
place.
I understand
that Thunderbird's future is currently under discussion and
pretty much open.
If it is decided to move Thunderbird out of Mozilla, I'd like
to suggest
to reach out to The Document Foundation and ask if they are
interested.
It seems to me that Thunderbird might be a good addition to
their
LibreOffice productivity suite.
Am 30.11.2015 um 22:11 schrieb Mitchell Baker:
> This is a long-ish message. It covers general topics
about Thunderbird
> and the future, and also the topics of the Foundation
involvement
> (point 9) and the question of merging repositories (point
11).
> Naturally, I believe it’s worth the time to read through
the end.
>
> 1. Firefox and Thunderbird have lived with competing
demands for some
> time now. Today Thunderbird developers spend much of
their time
> responding to changes made in core Mozilla systems and
technologies.
> At the same time, build, Firefox, and platform engineers
continue to
> pay a tax to support Thunderbird.
>
> 2. These competing demands are not good for either
project. Engineers
> working on Thunderbird must focus on keeping up and
adapting Firefox’s
> web-driven changes. Engineers working on Firefox and
related projects
> end up considering the competing demands of Thunderbird,
and/or
> wondering if and how much they should assist Thunderbird.
Neither
> project can focus wholeheartedly on what is best for it.
>
> 3. These competing demands will not get better soon.
Instead, they are
> very likely to get worse. Firefox and related projects
are now
> speeding up the rate of change, modernizing our
development process
> and our infrastructure. Indeed, this is required for
Mozilla to have
> significant impact in the current computing environment.
>
> 4. There is a belief among some that living with these
competing
> demands is good for the Mozilla project as a whole,
because it gives
> us an additional focus, assists Thunderbird as a
dedicated open source
> community, and also supports an open source standards
based email
> client. This sentiment is appealing, and I share it to
some extent.
> There is also a sense that caring for fellow open source
developers is
> good, which I also share. However, point 2 above —
“Neither project
> can focus wholeheartedly on what is best for it” -- is
the most
> important point. Having Thunderbird has an additional
product and
> focus is *not* good overall if it causes all of our
products —
> Firefox, other web-driven products and Thunderbird — to
fall short of
> what we can accomplish.
>
> 5. Many inside of Mozilla, including an overwhelming
majority of our
> leadership, feel the need to be laser-focused on
activities like
> Firefox that can have an industry-wide impact. With
all due respect
> to Thunderbird and the Thunderbird community, we have
been clear for
> years that we do not view Thunderbird as having this sort
of potential.
>
> 6. Given this, it’s clear to me that sooner or later
paying a tax to
> support Thunderbird will not make sense as a policy for
Mozilla. I
> know many believe this time came a while back, and I’ve
been slow to
> say this clearly. And of course, some feel that this
time should
> never come. However, as I say, it’s clear to me today
that continuing
> to live with these competing demands given our focus on
industry
> impact is increasingly unstable. We’ve seen this
already, in an
> unstructured way, as various groups inside Mozilla stop
supporting
> Thunderbird. The accelerating speed of Firefox and
infrastructure
> changes -- which I welcome wholeheartedly -- will
emphasize this.
>
> 7. Some Mozillians are eager to see Mozilla support
community-managed
> projects within our main development efforts. I am also
sympathetic
> to this view, with a key precondition. Community-managed
projects
> that make the main effort less nimble and likely to
succeed don’t fit
> very well into this category for me. They can still be
great open
> source projects -- this is a separate question from
whether the fit in
> our main development systems. I feel so strongly about
this because I
> am so concerned that “the Web” we love is at risk. If
we want the
> traits of the Web to live and prosper in the world of
mobile, social
> and data then we have to be laser-focused on this.
>
> 8. Therefore I believe Thunderbird should would thrive
best by
> separating itself from reliance on Mozilla development
systems and in
> some cases, Mozilla technology. The current setting isn’t
stable, and
> we should start actively looking into how we can
transition in an
> orderly way to a future where Thunderbird and Firefox are
> un-coupled. I don’t know what this will look like, or
how it will
> work yet. I do know that it needs to happen, for both
Firefox and
> Thunderbird’s sake. This is a big job, and may require
expertise that
> the Thunderbird team doesn’t yet have. Mozilla can
provide various
> forms of assistance to the Thunderbird team via a set of
the Mozilla
> Foundation’s capabilities.
>
> 9. Mark Surman of the Mozilla Foundation and I are both
interested in
> helping find a way for Thunderbird to separate from
Mozilla
> infrastructure. We also want to make sure that
Thunderbird has the
> right kind of legal and financial home, one that will
help the
> community thrive. Mark has been talking with the
Thunderbird
> leadership about this, and has offered some of his time
and focus and
> resources to assist. He will detail that offer in a
separate message.
> We both recognize that the Thunderbird community is
dedicated to
> sustaining a vibrant open source project, which is why
we’re currently
> looking at how best to assist with both technical
separation and
> identifying the right long-term home for Thunderbird.
These
> discussions are very early, so it’s easy to you can
definitely think
> of a lot of questions for which there are’s no answers
yet.
>
> 10. The fact that the Foundation is facilitating these
discussions
> does not necessarily mean that the Foundation is or is
not the best
> legal and financial home for Thunderbird. The intent is
not to make
> technical decisions about support of Thunderbird by
Mozilla employees,
> or merging repositories, etc. Point 6 above is the shared
organizing
> principle for both of us.
>
> 11. I understand from recent discussions that merging
mozilla-central
> and comm-central would provide some reduction of effort
required to
> ship Thunderbird, at least in the short term. This would
make sense if
> our path was long term integration of the projects. As i
noted above,
> I believe our path has to be the long term separation of
these
> projects, so that each can move as fast as possible into
new things.
> Given that, I’m not sure that merging them makes sense. I
have to
> learn a bit more about the cost / benefit analysis of
merging
> repositories given the need to separate these project.
I’m asking the
> platform and release folks to comment on this.
>
> 12. This message is about the future and there’s a lot
to work out.
> It’s explicitly not to announce changes in daily
activities at this
> point. People using Thunderbird will not see any change
in the
> product they use. We have started this conversation
early because
> Mozilla works best when our community is engaged. This
is how we
> gather the people who are interested, and enable those
folks to engage
> productively within the process. It also of course
allows those who
> prefer a different course of action to be vocal. We’ve
seen this
> before with Thunderbird. Building a positive response
and a positive
> conversation will be a very useful first step in making a
good future
> for Thunderbird.
>
>
> Mitchell
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
|
