In practice (and I know first-hand), there is not an important distinction between MoCo governance and Firefox governance. I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing.
I mean, we can keep abstractly arguing about whether "some MoCo control" is needed to "move forward" but that obscures what happened. Why was this particular mechanism needed to "move forward". Why wasn't a website + opt in addon sufficient?
-
-
Why is it a threat to Mozilla's ability to "move forward" to structure things in a more opt in way? Did Mr. Robot demand this structure as a condition of doing the deal. Did MoCo leadership determine that deals precisely like this (forced install) are needed strategically?
-
I really doubt it. The "you community zealots don't understand the reality of business" framing is just not really understanding the nature of the critique (btw I'm the CTO of a small business as my day job; I'm not a zealot)
-
I think you’re putting up the strawman now
I dont think you’re a zealot, and I value community and open governance. But as I said upthread, I don’t think this particular case was primarily a failure of governance. Happy to agree to disagree and leave it at that! -
Fair enough on all fronts. And apologies for getting straw-manny on you.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.