Joe Hildebrand wrote: > I'm responding at the top of the thread here so that I'm not singling out any > particular response. > > We didn't make clear in this process how much work Mark and his team did > ahead of the decision to gather feedback from senior engineers on both Selena > and my teams, and how deeply committed the directors have been in their > support of this change.
Really? So? What exactly is your point? 1) That Mark and his team put a lot of effort? 2) You gathered feedback from senior engineers? 3) The directors are deeply committed with this change? So you've asked senior engineers because they do the brunt of the reviews. Is this the new transparent way about selecting a tool which *everyone* uses and not just the selected few? [No... I'm not complaining because I wasn't selected. I'm complaining because Mozilla is doing a pdf.js with Splinter.] Don't get me wrong. I have absolutely no doubt Mark and his team placed a lot of effort in setting this up. Just as a lot of effort was put behind MozReview and Splinter. But the thing is, when someone at the top issues an edict that they want something 'modern', someone has to put the effort in, so saying what you said is just a red herring. It doesn't explain the rationale or even the criteria in selecting the new tool. > > Seeing a need for more modern patch reviewing at Mozilla, Laura Thomson's > team did an independent analysis of the most popular tools available on the market today. Working with the NSS team to pilot What exactly does a "more modern patch reviewing" mean? What is the set of criteria that would deem a tool to be 'modern'? All I am seeing is what I saw with PDF.js; that is, Mozilla is moving away from in-house solutions to external ones. Fine. That is Moco's choice. And yes, I have used Phabricator before so I know what it looks like. I'm just disagreeing with the necessity of setting up an external tool to Bugzilla's Splinter. But I suppose, I'll wait and see how this pans out. Perhaps two years down the road, something more 'modern' will come along and we'll go through this again. A company such as Mozilla that's purporting to support choice is certainly not really practicing what it preaches. In this specific example, we have seen Mozilla break the 8th edict of the Mozilla Manifesto; that is: "Transparent community-based processes promote participation, accountability and trust." The choice of Phabricator was neither transparent, nor community-based. So how is this going to promote participation, accountability and trust? Good luck with that. Again... I will wait and see how this Phabricator pans out. Worse comes to worse, I just copy and paste the code and review it in the comment section. > Therefore, I would appreciate that if you feel the need to further comment on > this thread, we focus on what can be done to make this transition successful, > rather than appearing to be standing in the way of progress. "standing in the way of progress"? Ouch. That is really harsh. Has that "if you're not with us, you're against us" type of vibe. Seriously... was that even necessary? Well... if that's the case, I'll just wait until gets released and have a go again. Edmund _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
