I think the issue is that Firefox used a technical mechanism billed as a way to help Firefox developers to deliver an ad. Are you saying that's ok? Or somehow not too bad?
-
-
Replying to @wycats
I say the technical mechanism they used is mostly irrelevant (except insofar as it impacted users, in this case by confusing them with an unfamiliar entry with weird-sounding description in their adding manager)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gavinsharp
Yes, and any plausible community governance process here would have noticed that. If you're asking if there's some hypothetical alternative way they could have made the deal, who knows, maybe? But what we learned is they make mistakes when they don't ask community governance.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
I think “community governance” is also mostly a red herring here. Any governance structure could have made this mistake. “Community” doesn’t solve all problems. (I am a former Mozilla employee and Firefox module owner, for context)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gavinsharp
I'm not postulating a silver bullet nor pointing to any particular process, certainly not ones that didn't work in the past. But the fact that MoCo's corporate hierarchy had the ability to do this is tied directly to governance. A multi-company leadership that ...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats @gavinsharp
was at all in touch with the community would not have used the SHIELD system to deliver an ad for MoCo. "Community doesn't solve all problems" is a far cry from "community leaders might not have noticed that this was a bad idea" I'm surprised you think that could have happened.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
See other reply - I don’t think there exists as clear a distinction between MoCo/community as you think. IMO the mistake here was the poor UX of the study system (i.e. confusing name/description) - and that is a class of mistake “the community” is just as likely to make.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gavinsharp
I am well aware of the lack of actual distinction. As I keep saying, that's what I'm criticizing! And no, if there was a good separation between MoCo business goals and Firefox the project, there would be a lot of suspicion about allowing the Corp to dictate this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats @gavinsharp
There's a lot of assumptions of bad faith here, and that's not likely to help. Some people who are smart and very committed to the success of Firefox made a mistake. That will happen again, humans make mistakes.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Big picture, the goal here was to do a good thing for Firefox growth. There are no divergent goals, every business metric depends on Firefox succeeding.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I don't mean to assume bad faith! Certainly not! I think this was done with the best of intentions, and that this was an unintentional error. But I think some process changes could help avoid this in the future. I don't think it's a bad faith assumption to ask for those.
-
-
Replying to @wycats @gavinsharp
The assertion of bad faith comes from loaded terms like "corporate hierarchy" and "business goals" as root problems that require non-employee involvement to counteract. Implying that those goals or objectives are somehow at odds with the best interest of Firefox.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.