On 13/12/17 19:52, Joe Smith wrote:
> There are plenty of Open Source messaging apps such as Signal that don't
> restrict users from using the servers based on age.
The entire point of Signal is that it collects no information about you
whatsoever. That isn't and cannot be true of the services we
Hi Joe,
On 09/12/17 17:20, Joe Smith wrote:
> I wanted to express my thoughts over Firefox. Firefox may be a great
> browser especially with the new browser that has been released but there is
> something that violates the term "Free (as in freedom, not beer) and Open
> Source", is the fact that F
On 15/11/17 16:00, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> The appropriate process would have been for Brendan to propose a successor
> here like all other modules my guess since he is now gone that Mitchell
> would be the next appropriate person to propose a replacement here.
Yes; if you need a new mozilla-top
On 29/09/17 19:51, Michele Warther wrote:
> People who have subscribed to text-only emails will be contacted once
> a year be with a link to confirm their interest in receiving text
> emails as well as the option to join other lists, update delivery
> method etc. We won’t be tracking any usage via
On 26/09/17 11:09, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> You did not actually answer anyone’s questions
> and taking this off list to privately reach out versus publicly answering
> these valid questions is contrary to the working in the open that Mozilla
> strives for.
>
> Please address these questions here
On 22/08/17 09:38, zbranie...@mozilla.com wrote:
> It came to light that React license purposefully may impact its users
> position.
Our legal team is not unaware of this issue, and has done some analysis.
I guess it's up to them about how much they are willing to say publicly
about the results
On 22/08/17 08:07, turin...@gmail.com wrote:
> Correct me if i am wrong but this is presented as a solution to
> collect data without having to get explicit consent. It is not clear
> that user will be able to disabled it or not. If this the case then
> please be more clear as it will lead to misun
On 22/08/17 07:45, turin...@gmail.com wrote:
> But the disagreement is not about the idea that the technology does
> not work. But that in principal collecting more data without users
> having the option for disable it is moral wrong no matter how
> trustworthy you are or useful it is for the produ
Hello, Redditors...
On 21/08/17 08:56, Georg Fritzsche wrote:
> One solution is the use of differential privacy [2] [3], which allows us to
> collect sensitive data without being able to make conclusions about
> individual users, thus preserving their privacy.
If you are going to comment here, yo
On 20/06/17 00:31, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/FirefoxOS lists all the Firefox OS and
> Gaia modules. Are these modules still relevant? Can this entire page be
> removed?
Good point. Unless I hear an objection, I will remove the entire page.
Gerv
Hi all,
You may remember back in 2015 in mozilla.governance we discussed various
aspects of the problem of making lists of countries/regions and what the
name of each country or region should be. The results of the discussion
were to make it Mozilla best practice to use the US Government's GENC
li
On 29/04/17 05:52, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> I think this is a good idea, but I suggest "DOM File" as the name. There
DOM: File to match the other DOM: components.
Gerv
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/l
On 25/04/17 16:36, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
> - Remove Ryan Kelly from Peers
Don't forget to make him a peer emeritus, unless there's some reason not to.
Gerv
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/
On 28/01/17 15:19, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> I doubt I would self-nominate myself at this point, but I certainly will
> not without a reasonable understanding of what the Thunderbird Council
> does. The closest to a description which I found is the second table in
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules
On 03/12/16 09:44, mozillarich...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Mitchell Baker and Mark Surman,
>
> It has been a year since this post was posted.
>
> Has Mozilla come to any decisions on the future of Thunderbird?
Decisions about the future of Thunderbird are mostly being taken by the
Thunderbird Counc
On 04/08/16 18:46, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> I want to say yes. However, even defining "code that ships as part of
> Firefox" under the same policy could be difficult.
You are right. However, you make a good case for why it's a worthy
endeavour.
> We've always had 3rd party code like libbzip2 and mo
On 04/08/16 16:22, Hal Wine wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Gervase Markham <mailto:g...@mozilla.org>> wrote:
>
> I had a few abortive goes at this a few years ago; it's an enormous
> effort to get everyone on the same bandwagon, and just lead
On 04/08/16 06:06, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> I'm going to say something that might be a bit contentious: I think a
> single commit access policy for all of Mozilla reflects the needs of
> Mozilla from several years ago, not the needs of Mozilla today. The world
> has changed. Mozilla has changed. The
Hi everyone,
Last December, we had a conversation[0] in this forum about the future
of Thunderbird, initiated by Mitchell. At the time, we said that we
would move to separate Thunderbird from Firefox’s release engineering
infrastructure. Since then, we have been reviewing the options for a
clear p
On 27/01/16 20:01, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> However, I feel like it would be appropriate for someone more senior to be
> the owner, as oftentimes decisions about directory structure boil down to
> higher-level issues that have more to do with "politics" than technical
> reasons.
You are very wise in
On 27/01/16 23:01, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> But he's also still listed as a peer for JavaScript, JavaScript
> Debugger Backend, Privilege Manager, Tamarin, Venkman. Should those
> all be changed to "peer emeritus"?
I think that's probably the most appropriate course of action.
Gerv
__
Hi Brendan,
Thanks for all your hard work on Mozilla stuff over many years. You have
been and will continue to be missed. I wish you all the best with Brave :-)
On 25/01/16 21:57, Brendan Eich wrote:
> module wiki and bugzilla permissions. (I'll keep my bugzilla.m.o login
> for now, but I shouldn
On 22/01/16 23:14, cmcg...@mozilla.com wrote:
> "Push Notifications: Push Notifications allow sites to send
> notifications and updates to you if you opt-in. To receive
> notifications, Firefox sends information to Mozilla about what sites
> you have agreed to receive Push Notification from.
On t
On 05/01/16 22:20, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> I think having a emeritus role doesn't make sense and think it will be one
> more thing that someone has to keep updated.
There is no requirement to keep it updated; I would expect being listed
to be driven by the ex-owner themselves, who wanted to be a
Hi Majken,
On 05/01/16 21:39, Majken Connor wrote:
> I'm not so sure. This is really a question of what's the purpose of this
> module, and of the module system at all!
The purpose of the module system is to be the core of the governance of
the Mozilla project. (Whether it adequately fulfils that
On 31/12/15 18:51, Andrew McCreight wrote:
> I suppose technically a module owner can name anybody an emeritus peer by
> synthesizing it out of existing module owner operations (name person as
> peer, remove them as peer, add them as emeritus peer), so maybe that's
> sufficient for giving people in
Hi everyone,
We have now implemented the idea of Owners Emeritus and Peers Emeritus
for Mozilla modules. ("Emeritus" is a Latin word which is used in
English to indicate people who no longer do a job, but are marked as
having done the job in the past. It's an honourary position.)
We have implemen
On 17/12/15 21:08, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> I'm sure someone on the Firefox Team didn't wake up one morning
> and say "Great Scotts we are missing Pocket in Firefox!" and AFAIK
> this was not on any long term roadmap.
That's not correct; this was so much on the roadmap that a team was busy
buildi
On 12/11/15 07:00, jme...@mozilla.com wrote:
> There were a few questions relating to what happens to the licenses
> we already use. We described how this works in our FAQ
> (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/patents/), questions 1 and 3.
> The goal of MOSPL and its surrounding work is to create
Hi,
On 10/11/15 06:54, 何鹏飞 wrote:
> My English is so poor that I can’t describe it clearly, so I have uploaded
> 3 PDFs and the installer downloaded from http://www.firefox.com.cn/ in the
> attachment to show the details about the things I have told you above. Among
> them the “compare.pdf” shows
On 03/11/15 14:54, el...@mozilla.com wrote:
> Additionally, if you have any questions we can answer, please also
> let us know. Looking forward to hearing your feedback!
It seems perhaps like an opportunity has been missed to establish a
patent commons. Did you ponder the possibility of writing th
On 03/11/15 16:43, Sean Stangl wrote:
> 4.a sounds very similar to the much-hated Facebook policy of the licenses
> immediately revoking upon bringing a claim -- so that if one uses Mozilla
> software, we are effectively free to infringe upon their patents. But the
> language used is extremely vagu
Hi Elvin,
This is very interesting :-) Here are some initial questions.
On 03/11/15 14:54, el...@mozilla.com wrote:
> Additionally, if you have any questions we can answer, please also
> let us know. Looking forward to hearing your feedback!
As I understand it, the MOSPL says: "if you want to us
On 03/11/15 05:26, Svetlana A. Tkachenko wrote:
> As a part of that project, I would like to propose to identify and
> eliminate usage of proprietary software by Mozilla.
Such an effort would not be part of MOSS; it is outside its scope.
However, this forum is the right place to discuss whether Mo
On 30/10/15 05:46, Johnny Stenback wrote:
> far as I'm aware, have a mailing list that reaches all current module
> owners and peers, I wrote a script to scrape the wiki
> (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/All) and created a list of unique
> email addresses in that page.
I hope this was easy to do
On 22/10/15 07:02, Eric Shepherd wrote:
> Okay, I misunderstood then. I had heard things that led me to make an
> obviously (in hindsight) foolish assumption. I knew he wasn't gone
> gone, but thought I had heard he had turned over module owner roles
> to others. Sorry for the mixup on that.
He ma
On 20/10/15 08:14, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> Indeed many modules still list Brendan as either a peer or owner and as far
> as I know his participation even as a volunteer is uncertain.
Brendan has certainly participated since he stopped being CEO of MoCo.
If you feel that a particular module is no
On 20/10/15 19:02, Jet Villegas wrote:
> When a Module Owner is also a Mozilla employee who then leaves Mozilla, it
> seems prudent that their Module Ownership is relinquished.
I would be very uneasy with this being the default. Module Ownership is
a Mozilla project position, and does not come wi
On 04/09/15 00:53, Rastus Vernon wrote:
> That's excellent! Point two seems weaker than the two others.
How so? What would you prefer it to say? :-)
Gerv
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/govern
Hi Marshall,
This is great - thanks for putting it together.
On 02/09/15 22:53, mer...@mozilla.com wrote:
> 2) Minimal Impact Mozilla Principle #2 states that the Internet is a
> global public resource. Government surveillance decisions should take
> into account global implications for trust and
On 10/05/15 17:31, Vladimir Krstic wrote:
> Please work this out, investigate why these people have there
> location set like so and fix it.
Thanks to everyone for their input on this. It's clear that none of the
options available to us here is without any problems. So, after
discussions with Mozi
Hi Abigail,
On 03/08/15 07:03, aphill...@mozilla.com wrote:
> We're revising the above notice (though not changing the actual
> license) to make sure we're being clear about our position on our
> trademarks.
>
> Our proposed revised text is here:
>
> "Rights in the trademarks and service marks o
Kyle's answers are excellent. Just a correction:
On 22/07/15 00:00, Kyle Huey wrote:
> Mozilla was created with a less restrictive license because Netscape
> wanted to be able to incorporate open source Mozilla code into its
> proprietary products. The original Netscape Public License had no
> co
On 21/07/15 19:36, mark.fin...@gmail.com wrote:
> We already have a module for Firefox for Android, but Firefox for iOS
> is different technology and a different team within the Mobile
> group.
That sounds like a fine idea. :-)
> Name: Firefox for iOS Description: Mobile web browser on iOS device
On 07/07/15 14:28, Angly Cat wrote:
> I'm sorry, Gerv, but I don't buy it. "Selling the service" (aka
> "sub-licensing") is indeed included in "commercial use" activity
> variations, but "commercial use" is not limited to just
> "sub-licensing". Unless it defined explicitly in Pocket(tm) ToS, I
> s
On 06/07/15 17:59, Angly Cat wrote:
> Disclaimer: I'm a bit confused with your wording. Therefore disregard
> my message if "Pocket TOS do not prevent you using Pocket in a
> commercial environment" means "Pocket TOS do not prevent you using
> Firefox (except integrated Pocket) in commercial way" r
On 03/07/15 01:55, B Galliart wrote:
> To date, no one from the Mozilla Foundation has been able to explain
> a practical method to legally use this integration commercially (as
> required by the Open Source Definition #6).
You can accept my assurance that the Pocket TOS do not prevent you using
On 22/06/15 22:46, B Galliart wrote:
> However, lets say, just for the sake of argument, that Pocket decides
> it want a web site popularity/rank feature. Something similar to
> Google PageRank or Alexa add-ons. As part of this (again for the
> sake of argument), the Pocket integration links into
On 24/06/15 08:21, Majken Connor wrote:
> We might also wait to see what Gerv comes back with. As I say to my kids,
> there's no point arguing about it, look it up. Gerv is currently "looking
> it up" or at least trying to. Everything in between is conjecture and will
> become irrelevant once we he
On 17/06/15 21:12, Majken Connor wrote:
> Mike just gave about partnerships vs open. Also there seems to be an open
> question of what the ToS actually mean for Firefox users.
I am attempting to get more clarity on this specific question.
Gerv
___
gov
On 11/06/15 17:28, Soyeon Park wrote:
> It's Soyeon from Whova.
Oops, sorry. Didn't twig this was spam when it was in the mod queue. :-(
Gerv
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
On 10/06/15 17:07, Christopher Carpenter wrote:
> In the event that we or certain of our assets are acquired, user
> information may be included among the transferred assets.
I don't think that's a problem /per se/, if any restrictions Mozilla has
placed on how that data is to be used continue
On 10/06/15 19:28, john99.s...@gmail.com wrote:
> Yes that is true. Equally it could be argued that We may Sync
> Bookmarks in Firefox without any need to integrate Pocket.
Between copies of Firefox, yes. But Pocket's feature set gives you a
great deal more than that. If this was all it was, I agr
On 10/06/15 17:52, john99.s...@gmail.com wrote:
> As I understand it the original recent Pocket (signed) addon; allowed
> retrieval of locally saved copies without a requirement of an
> internet connection.
There are other addons which provide this facility, such as Zotero.
Also, you can simply Sa
On 10/06/15 17:41, B Galliart wrote:
>> What is the URL for these Terms of Service, and what makes you
>> think they apply to Firefox Pocket?
>
> The *ONLY* Terms of Service related to Pocket(TM) software seems to
> be at: https://getpocket.com/tos
Right. I take back this implied criticism of you
On 09/06/15 14:05, commentsab...@riseup.net wrote:
> First of, it seems like you do not remember how “safe browsing” and the
> now gone “location service” were welcomed back at the time. Mozilla was
> highly criticized and there's still reason to do so regarding “safe
> browsing” when you know that
On 10/06/15 10:22, Tim Guan-tin Chien wrote:
> But again, I am not sure of the process needed to make it a Mozilla-wide
> policy.
I'd say the easiest route is via something like: consensus, written
support from key stakeholders and then a rubber-stamp from Mitchell. If
we can't get consensus, we s
On 10/06/15 06:21, bgal...@gmail.com wrote:
> (1) The Terms of Service and Privacy Policy claim to go into effect
> by installing their software.
Whoa, there. Pocket's Privacy Policy applies if you use the
Firefox-integrated Pocket, sure. But are you sure their ToS apply? The
ToS from which you qu
On 10/06/15 13:29, commentsab...@riseup.net wrote:
> Here's the wikicode responsible for this behavior:
>
> {for not fx27}In both cases, existing cookies you have from google.com,
> our list provider, may also be sent.{/for}
Right; so we fixed that problem in Firefox 27.
Gerv
__
On 09/06/15 14:21, snafumatt...@gmail.com wrote:
> "Yes, we're including this other feature now and thus are going to
> have to maintain its code despite there being only a few users who
> are going to use that feature.
Do you have telemetry or metrics which show that few people use Pocket?
One of
On 09/06/15 12:44, Patrick Cloke wrote:
> - User facing component: Pocket is a MUCH more user facing feature
> than, e.g. safe browsing is. Frankly, I'd suggest many non-power users
> don't know that safe browsing is a thing...and if they do know, they
> probably have no idea how it works. Search
On 09/06/15 04:22, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> What I'm saying is this: don't mix up the two arguments above. If
> you're really upset by the Pocket integration, it's almost certainly
> because of the first argument above, so don't get side-tracked by the
> second argument.
Right. And the first a
On 23/05/15 21:40, Mike Hoye wrote:
> - Defer to the ISO spec. We wash our hands of the matter, in other
> words. This sends a very clear message to our community.
That's what we do now, right? This is the option with the disadvantage
that residents of Kosovo, if required to pick a country, must p
On 25/05/15 15:24, Majken Connor wrote:
> Ok, and how would we figure out where people are on a map, or if they are
> near each other in this case?
The map use case is easy - there can be few arguments about a person
putting a pin in a map. (Of course, the labels on the map itself might
be a sour
On 23/05/15 21:40, Mike Hoye wrote:
> - Make it a freeform text field and trust our people to exercise their
> best judgement as members of the Mozilla community.
If we decide to take this option, then we can avoid many of the
downsides of freeform text by having an editable listbox - i.e. you can
On 14/05/15 07:48, Kan-Ru Chen (陳侃如) wrote:
> The ISO-3166 standard is controversial. It only presents the member
> states' view. Many organizations have already changed to use regions
> instead of countries because of this issue. See
> http://iso3166.github.io/ for some of them.
That page lists o
On 13/05/15 15:31, Adam Roach wrote:
> Sure, and the other people who have hit this problem have deferred to
> organizations who have expertise in the area. In the same way as the
> United Nations could not reasonably offer an informed opinion on best
> practices for multithreaded process synchroni
On 13/05/15 14:54, Adam Roach wrote:
> That's a highly uncontroversial example, given that the area is
> uncontentiously recognized as Catalonia. Your proposal only sounds
> reasonable on its surface because you're ignoring the more problematic
> designations I mentioned, like Kurdistan and ISIL.
On 12/05/15 20:00, Adam Roach wrote:
> We should not be taking actions that make it look like Mozilla is trying
> to independently determine what is and what isn't a country.
That is very true. The best solution, however, is not to make the field
freeform, which has problems that others outline, b
On 12/05/15 17:45, Fred Wenzel wrote:
> By the way, the other country in that bug, South Sudan, also hasn't landed.
> It *does* have an ISO country code ("ss") and is recognized by 123 other
> countries[4]. Happy to land that too, unless there are remaining blockers
> for that to proceed.
It'll be
On 12/05/15 03:57, Majken Connor wrote:
> Reps portal uses OpenStreetMap. I believe before we had the user editable
> fields you had to select a location on a map (though my memory could be
> failing me on this). I have a memory of people complaining about it turning
> up as Albania, but I couldn't
On 07/05/15 00:03, Gareth Aye wrote:
> I was wondering about what (if any) protocol exists for removing peers from
> modules that they have been inactive in for a long period of time. For
> instance, if I am an owner of a code module and one of the module's peers
> hasn't contributed or reviewed an
On 24/04/15 23:43, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> Currently @mozilla.org aliases and accounts are for original @mozilla.org
> folks (a handful of people) and were for sometime used by foundation but
> that practice stopped AFAIK otherwise they are assigned anymore. There has
> been discussion over the y
On 15/04/15 16:54, Mike Connor wrote:
> The vast majority of the work is evaluation of legal compliance (i.e.
> financial, people, contractual, etc) to identify how restrictive we _must_
> be in order to be compliant with our legal obligations. That part is not
> going to be open, as many of the d
On 14/04/15 21:47, Mike Connor wrote:
> I get the sentiment, but that's just not practical in all cases.
Sure. So let's evaluate each case and see where it is practical. I'm
fairly sure it is practical in at least some of the cases under discussion.
> That said, Bugzilla is not the right level to
On 13/04/15 05:46, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> We are talking about radical participation this year as a organization
> priority but there are still a lot areas of the project and to Mozilla
> itself that are not visible to core contributors (I like to call it the
> Great Wall of Mozilla) even those
On 13/04/15 19:52, Sheeri Cabral wrote:
> IT bugs are NOT private by default, but it is true that most of the time we
> click the "infrastructure" button, that means that it will be private.
To be clear, what I mean is, on this form:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/form.itrequest
(which I think is t
On 13/04/15 13:24, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
> Can you give a few examples of the types of bugs where you believe
> company-confidential is wrong and yet they can't be public?
Example: IT bugs are private by default, presumably in case the bug or
follow-up reveals some data about our internal systems
On 08/01/15 10:40, tobbi.s...@gmail.com wrote:
> Religion, however, belongs to one of those "things that are only a
> matter of opinion".
This opinion was precisely why I wrote my next sentence:
>> The difficulty arises, of course, when it's not agreed whether
>> something is undecidable or not.
Hi Majken,
On 08/01/15 19:15, Majken Connor wrote:
> I know there is a bugzilla component that covers the mailing list/groups
> discussion forums. I was just quickly wondering if there is a module that
> governs them.
I believe this is one of the many areas of Mozilla where the governance
has not
On 08/01/15 12:47, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> The main difference is that "you are wrong" sounds like "you are a wrong
> person" or "something is wrong with who you are", even more to someone
> who is not an English native speaker.
Thing is, that's not what it means in English.
KaiRo: "Beijing is the
Mozilla is not just a workplace. The vast majority of Mozillians aren't
employed by Mozilla. I was a Mozillian before I became an employee, and
I'll still be one if I ever stop being an employee. Mozilla is first and
foremost a community.
Mozilla is also a globally diverse community. The idea that
On 07/01/15 16:23, Fred Wenzel wrote:
> Sounds good. We (github-owners) are happy to help make that happen.
Super. :-) Is there a good place to file a bug to get this done
globally? If not, is there a list of Mozilla repos? Or do we just do all
the ones in the Mozilla organization(s)? But that may
On 07/01/15 16:57, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> Gerv, can you please describe how the two are exactly related in a
> concrete manner? I've definitely missed the connection in the years
> that I have contributed tot he project.
Having made that point, I realise that this is far from obvious to some
peop
On 08/01/15 00:51, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> IMHO, anything where you say some*one* is wrong as a person should not
> happen at Mozilla. People have different views and they are right in
> what they say according to those views, even if other people disagree,
> which is fine. "I don't agree with you"
On 07/01/15 16:09, Fred Wenzel wrote:
> Will this be tracked anywhere (i.e., as a "consent flag" that can later be
> pointed at when needed)?
No. The new document opens:
"By committing to Mozilla repositories - that is, by directly
contributing source code, documentation or other data ("Code") to
On 30/12/14 18:28, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> Responsibilities:
> - monitoring the access request queue
> - confirming that all access requests satisfy the requirements of the
> commit access policy before being granted
> - coordinating with relevant members of the IT team who are ultimately
> respons
On 01/01/15 17:03, Majken Connor wrote:
> Whichever
> version of God does or doesn't exist doesn't affect Mozilla as an
> organization.
Unfortunately, that's not something everyone agrees on either. :-( So I
hope you can understand how people who don't share this premise with you
also don't reach
Hi Majken,
On 29/12/14 18:00, Majken Connor wrote:
> I don't know whether the disclaimer is what Mike is talking about, though I
> think it does obviously let people know right up front that you'll be
> talking about Christianity, though I don't think it really does a good job
> of describing what
On 18/12/14 16:57, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Well... OK. :-) I'm with you on the principle. But still hazy about the
> practice. Help me with an example: what kind of
> warning/disclaimer/sentence would have been the sort of thing these
> guidelines would encourage at the top o
On 17/12/14 17:38, Mike Hoye wrote:
> On 2014-12-17 6:33 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> Sheeri said something very interesting the other day. She suggested that
>> people wanting not to be exposed to views they disagree with were
>> demanding a form of privilege.
>
> Th
On 15/12/14 19:15, Mike Connor wrote:
> I think you’re reaching an unintended conclusion. We could make the
> tag “planet” or something more specific, the point is to publish the
> content that authors _intentionally_ choose to publish to Planet.
> It’s entirely about intention.
Oh, great. So if
On 15/12/14 16:02, Mike Hoye wrote:
> I wasn't clear about this, but yes. They're happening in parallel, it
> would be nice to ship them in parallel, but there's nothing tying them
> together.
Great :-)
> This is the basis of my argument that "by taking an active role in this,
> we can do better"
On 16/12/14 16:34, Mike Hoye wrote:
> I think that the case the Reps make - broadly speaking that enabling
> community leadership is a thing we want and that a mozilla.org email
> address can lend weight and legitimacy to those efforts - is compelling.
> I think a better question than "should the R
On 15/12/14 18:59, Mike Connor wrote:
> We're planning to move to an explicit tag model, where we will
> publish only posts that are explicitly tagged as Mozilla. This is
> not intended to exclude off-topic content, but to encourage a degree
> of intentionality around the content individuals choos
Hi Mike,
On 12/12/14 16:48, Mike Hoye wrote:
> As part of a Planet refresh [1] planned for the new year and aiming for
> end-Q2, the Planet peers are going to be revising the somewhat-sparse
> Planet documentation and policies [2].
A visual redesign is a fine thing, although those who consume via
On 11/12/14 13:58, Kate Black wrote:
> "Microsoft, Google and Mozilla were "working together to look at" having
> "built-in restrictions to block access" to child abuse material - Mr
> Cameron said this would be a "game changer""
> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30426164
I have been unable to find out
On 10/12/14 22:19, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> It is a shame there is not despite how much support for such was shown in
> the last round of discussions. It seems like we just got into bikeshedding
> over the topic.
I really don't think that issues about who should get one, what the
criteria should
On 08/12/14 12:04, rjen...@mozilla.com wrote:
> I'm working with a volunteer who has been supporting my team quite a
> lot, and I would like to give access to a resource source (appannie)
> for them to be more integrated in our work. (NB: Mozilla has free
> access to as many seats as we want but u
On 25/11/14 17:29, Adam Porter wrote:
>> Are you advocating we not ship one at all?
>
> I advocate sticking to the principles upon which one's mission is
> founded. If you compromise them, what do you have left?
> Utilitarianism does not lead to liberty.
Mozilla has always been a pragmatic organ
1 - 100 of 251 matches
Mail list logo
