Gervase Markham wrote:
Amir Herzberg wrote:
> It is not an issue of fairness, it is an issue of open process. I am
> indeed disappointed to find that Mozilla is not acting openly. As a
> believer in open process, I am concerned that the result may be
> suboptimal.
I would like the process to be more open. I hope and expect that in the
future, it will be. However, to achieve the goal, it can't be open right
now.
Fine. Considering Mozilla are currently pursueing a different, `closed`
approach, the technical discussion moved to the new list Duane made (see
original post); please join if and when interested.
> This is not the way to encourage innovation. In fact, this
> situation, which was not even disclosed openly during this lengthy
> discussion,
As I said, some of those involved are reticent about their involvement.
I don't see why this prevented you from stating all this up front,
instead of wasting people's time on trying to convince you to follow an
open process you (temporarily?) abandoned.
And I hope the occupants of this newsgroup won't go shooting their
mouths off in blogs and on Slashdot.
I'm rather surprised at this comment. After all, you (claim to) believe
in open process, and surely criticism of your actions is a part of that.
If somebody feels this is somewhat contrary to the stated goals and
principles of Mozilla and the open community in general, what's wrong
about voicing this in any forum?
> puts Heikki's advice on `develop code` in rather strange
> light.
Not at all. Just because we're not in a position to accept your code now
doesn't mean it's not valuable.
It certainly does not mean the code is not valueable. OTOH, it is
important input, which I think in fairness should have been disclosed.
For example, I may have decided to put more effort into non-Mozilla
development; we currently do only FireFox and IE, I may have focused
more on the IE version, or even begun an effort on another browser. I am
definitely considering such options now; regardless of my decision and
actions, the fact that this new information resulted in re-evaluation
indicates this information should have been disclosed.
I am not angry, I'm sure you and Heikke simply did not consider the
implication of your following a closed process and the need to dislose
that decision. Frankly, a simple apology would have made me feel better
about it, but I don't insist, after all sometimes `sorry seems to be the
hardest word` :-)
> I'm not planning to stop coding (yet), but I think you should
> have indicated that at least the Mozilla group thinks that working in a
> closed committee will be more effective
Please don't make it so black and white - it's not. I personally don't
think a closed group is any more effective, but I'm not the only person
with a view on the question.
Ok, and even if you did, that's an understandable position, even if I
think it is wrong.
Best, Amir Herzberg
_______________________________________________
Mozilla-security mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-security
