On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Jay Garcia wrote: > I wish people would stop throwing > > this term around as if it were actually a defined category > > of human beings. mozilla.org is obligated to provide > > docs targeted toward dogfood consumers, just as it is > > obligated to provide browser functionality usable at that level. > > No, they are not.
Yes, WE are. > > from mozilla.org not being obligated to provide any sort of support > > to those or any other users. > > Red Hat "is" obligated to provide documentation for *their* spin-off, > not Mozilla who provides the foundation. Red Hat is obligated to provide documentation for their customization only. Honestly, I'm surprised that some are actually arguing we should not do How does providing help aimed at the the early adopters of the product hurt mozilla? At some level, we've got to start caring about market penetration, and that depends precisely upon the number of people who get the browser in their hands, use it, and keep using it. Since we are the closest to the project, it's up to us to facilitate this process. (If we don't, we make the bar higher for any distro that comes along. To push this off upon them guarentees that the number of distros will be small and the job will probably not be done.) The best way we can do this is to provide a safety net (docs/help) that prevent these early users from ditching the product entirely. It's the bare minimum that we owe them. To suggest that we not do this, is as far as I can tell, suicidal. ~Mike
