On 03/12/2015 16:09, 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
Did you consult PR before you posted your response?
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
Whoa. We're an open project. This is what we do. It is fundamentally
impossible to have open and honest conversation in public for a
high-profile project like Mozilla, and not have the media cover it.
There is also literally no way to communicate "we're going to do a
little less of X" (for pretty much any subtle meaning of "do a little
less") in a way that makes users of X happy and/or avoids media coverage
that doesn't just say "stop", "wind down", "eliminate", "kill" etc. even
if all 4 of those are hyperbole. It happened last time we reduced
investment in Thunderbird. Of course it happened again.
Unless we want Mozilla to stop being an open project where things like
this can be discussed by everyone in an open fashion, there is no way
around this.
TBH, if this hadn't been discussed publicly before finalizing plans,
people would have complained because it was a "decision made in secret"
and "why wasn't I consulted". Now people are being consulted and instead
those doing the consulting get told "but you didn't come out with a
finished plan and so the media spreads FUD and people are upset, don't
do that".
I'm sorry, we can't have it both ways, and blaming Mitchell (or PR, or
anyone else) for that is not a productive thing to do.
~ Gijs
(who has spent the last month or so becoming intimately familiar with
reactions to "we're stopping X" because tab groups / panorama.)
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
