On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Christian Walde <walde.christ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 21:09:18 +0200, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Christian Walde < > walde.christ...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 20:45:44 +0200, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Christian Walde < >> walde.christ...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 20:22:34 +0200, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 4:49 AM, <walde.christ...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> There's one argument unmentioned here, and i suspect it wasn't >>>> mentioned yet because Tucker is too polite to do so. I however, having been >>>> burned many ways by Mozilla's "governance", have no reason to be polite >>>> about it. >>>> >>>> The addition of things like Hello and Pocket in FF core* deserves only >>>> a single description: >>>> >>>> Hypocrisy. >>>> >>>> Mozilla removed features that were core in FF, and would've been core >>>> in *any* browser; while arguing those features could be re-added as >>>> extensions. >>>> >>> >>> I'm trying to figure out how you think this applies to Hello. The WebRTC >>> functionality in Firefox that Hello makes use of is still there and >>> continues >>> to be improved. >>> >>> >>> As far as i can tell: >>> >>> WebRTC is an API, which of course belongs into core. >>> >>> Hello is a user interface, which should've been an extension. >>> >>> Or is it not be possible to implement an extension that duplicates >>> Hello's functionality and makes use of the WebRTC api? >>> >> >> Yes, it is probably possible to implement an extension that duplicate's >> Hello's functionality. I don't think it follows from that that it's not >> appropriate >> to ship it as part of Firefox. >> >> >> Thanks for confirming that my line of thought is correct on the >> implementability of Hello as an extension. >> >> That said, you may think it does not follow, but given that you do not >> explain why you think this, there is not much of a conversation to be had, >> and your ability to convince is zero as of now. >> > > I'm not trying to convince you. You made an assertion that I don't think > is convincing > and I said so. > > > I'm describing a factual reality. The parameters of such i hope i made > clear and obviously match the reality we live in. If there are parameters i > have overlooked, it is up to you to state which ones. > No, really, it's not. You made (and continue to make a categorical argument) about hypocrisy. I think that argument is silly and gave you some potential reasons why it's reasonable to make different decisions in different cases, but I'm really not interested in debating the particulars of either of these cases or in trying to convince you. Feel free to continue to think what you want. -Ekr _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
