Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla wrote:
Sure, but not every change is necessarily for the better, even in the
view of now former MoCo employees who feel like it has changed too much
and linger to the old Mozilla Foundation days. You could call it old
sentiment, but it is a fact that some things might have changed too much.
Sure. I too wouldn't say everything has changed for the better, but the
success of Firefox and AMO certainly are changes for the better in my
book, not only for the Mozilla community but also for those tens of
millions of users who now have a better internet experience.
This is a rather limited view on things, because there are more
interesting products these days, like: Joost, Miro and Songbird (just a
few examples).
I wasn't intending to provide an unlimited survey of changes, merely to
highlight those relevant to the question of AMO vs. Mozdev functionality.
Mozilla's growth into a consumer product with many millions of users is
relevant to that question, while of the three other applications you
mention, only one (Songbird) has addons, and it too has its own addons
directory <http://addons.songbirdnest.com/>, even though some addons for
it have projects at Mozdev.
Isn't that exactly how things should be for a software product?
Yes. I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. I was just
pointing out that it was a big change that created a need for the kind
of managed directory of addons that no one else (including Mozdev)
provided, hence the development of AMO.
Yes, but we also had mozillaZine (pretty much dead without updates) and
XULplanet (stuff moved over to MDC) so it looks like big mamaZilla is
eating everything and everybody, even their own employees (think
Thunderbird folks here).
mozillaZine is indeed pretty quiet these days, but MoFo has done nothing
to stifle it.
Regarding XULPlanet, it's true that MDC duplicates much of the
documentation on that site (including some pieces that were copied over
with permission), but it also goes far beyond what XULPlanet provided.
There's nothing wrong with MoFo contributing to Mozilla when they see a
need that isn't being met by others in the community.
Which is totally irrelevant because looking back is always easy.
It sounded to me like you were arguing that AMO duplicated functionality
that Mozdev already provided, and I said that Mozdev didn't provide such
functionality. That seems pretty relevant to me.
I started to read Basil's blog about the upcoming AMO changes (thanks to
David Ascher) and there is still a lot of work to be done, even after
the next update in December (with respect the the good folks working on
the update) and mozdev.org could just as easily change a far bit too you
know.
Yes, sure, there are lots of things that could be done to Mozdev, just
as there are lots of things that could be done to AMO, and both sites
are planning to do lots of those things in the future.
That isn't a "subtle change" but a huge disappointment. Thank you
mozdev.org (crew) for filling the blanks for so long, and here's the
MoFu middle finger (follow the leader or die).
That's rude, uncalled for, and incorrect. MoFo has made no attempt to
control or kill Mozdev and in fact has donated generously to keeping it
alive.
In that case I am awaiting one formal reply from the mozdev.org board to
make this change clear to everyone, because again that would be a total
surprise to me (this also explains why I got into this argument with
Robert)!
I don't speak for the board, but if the board were to agree with me,
then I don't think it would represent any change. I don't recall Mozdev
ever providing the kind of functionality that AMO provides, and there
are no AMO-like features on Mozdev's roadmap
<http://www.mozdev.org/resources/roadmap.html>.
-myk
_______________________________________________
Project_owners mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
