On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 21:29:09 +0200, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote:
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.
"xxx is silly" is not an argument, it is an assertion that is up to you to
prove.
You tried to do so with guesses, and i explained why guesses are
insufficient.
As for the particulars, they are *exactly* what stands in question in this
thread. Without further evidence there cannot be (especially in light past
behavior of Mozilla, see the ad debacle) an assumption of reasonability of
decisions of Mozilla that have obvious drawbacks and are in contradiction
to their own statements.
--
With regards,
Christian Walde
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
