Thanks for taking the time to write feedback.
Braden McDaniel wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "German Bauer"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> After talking to many folks inside and outside Mozilla, some of us got
>> together to discuss ways of how to make the Mozilla User Experience
>> Design Process more efficient, more open and more engaging. I have
>> collected these thoughts and wrote them up as a proposal.
>>
>> The proposal is posted at http://www.mozilla.org/projects/ui/process/
>> This is a rough draft, but if we can agree on the basic principles, I am
>> ready to do what I can to help implement this.
>>
>> I would love to hear feedback, please post it to the
>> netscape.public.mozilla.ui newsgroup, so that all interested folks can
>> benefit. Thanks
>
>
> It's nice to see this getting discussed, but it's apparent that we're a
> long way from where we need to be.
>
> "Meetings are called as needed and are open to the UI lead from the
> Mozilla community. The UI lead is responsible for bringing Mozilla
> specific issues to the table."
>
> How nice of Netscape to allow a mozilla.org representative into the
> meetings where it decides what Mozilla will look like.
I am sorry you felt that way. I am seeing the Mozilla community as one
body of UI-interested parties, but they may be one or more commercial
companies that also build off Mozilla. Right now this is Netscape, but
there will be more in the future. By Mozilla UI lead I weas merely
suggesting somebody that represents the path of UI that leads to Mozilla
1.0 which is a separate thing than a commercial 'derived' product. ( See
doc.)
>
> "The final decision on a particular design is made by group consensus."
>
> The document does not address what happens when there's a failure to
> reach consensus. In that case, resolution should be in the hands of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In that case one possibility the module decides whether its worth
branching the UI . In my opinion there does not have to be one UI all
the time as may have very different needs.
>
> "We currently have commercial builds as well as Mozilla builds, both
> serve different goals and a different customer sets."
>
> "We" have commercial builds???
See above I was merely referring to these as two types of 'strategies'
or 'end products'. Right now there is 2: Netscape on a 6.x time table
and Mozilla on their 0.x to 1.0 timetable. Both serve different time
tables and needs. In the future there will other companies/products
derived from the base Mozilla UI. If you have a better way of expressing
this, I'd love to hear about it.
>
> German, why is this document posted on the mozilla.org Web site? This is
> a Netscape document about *Netscape's* process. If it aims to be a
> proposal for mozilla.org process, I think it needs to be rethought and
> rewritten from the mozilla.org viewpoint.
I am open to your suggestions. Let me know what portions you feel could
be rewrittent to better represent mozilla as a whole.
>
> Braden
