Re: Some people on Mozilla Reps have inappropriate City-State

I'd notice that recently, more and more new Mozilla website came exist with this problematic ISO3166 problem. For example, Mozilla Location Service https://location.services.mozilla.com/stats/countries Shape of the Web https://shapeoftheweb.mozilla.org/access/speed We Do Need to set a policy

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

Hey - I appreciate all the feedback. I've tried to read all the message in this thread and respond to them here. Firefox is a constantly evolving system that is always changing and never finished. Pocket has been a popular Firefox Add-On for a long time and we've seen that users love to save

Re: Some people on Mozilla Reps have inappropriate City-State

Just learned that we have already a good list for Country/Region for product. Please use this instead of ISO3166 and make it into a L10n policy! 1) http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/toolkit/locales/en-US/chrome/global/regionNames.properties 2) http://viewvc.svn.mozilla.org/vc/libs/pr

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

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

Re: Some people on Mozilla Reps have inappropriate City-State

Why is this a "good" list? This doesn't have an entry for Kosovo, nor for South Sudan, nor for the most recent incarnation of the various Netherlands Antilles (it still has "Netherlands Antilles" which is no longer a nation state entity) ~ Gijs On 09/06/2015 10:02, Irvin Chen wrote: Just lea

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

Well, deciding whether a feature should be part of Firefox or not is part of the job of Product Management. So, by deciding that Hello or Pocket should be bundled in, but that other features should not, they have done exactly their job. Whether or not you agree with these choices is up to you. But

Re: Some people on Mozilla Reps have inappropriate City-State

Because it's what we currently used for our products. And anyone can file a bug on bugzilla to fix those problem you mentioned, in the mean time other project can adopt it without go through all hesitate & resolving argues for ISO 3166 all again. 2015-06-09 17:52 GMT+08:00 Gijs Kruitbosch : >

Re: Some people on Mozilla Reps have inappropriate City-State

Instead of arguing what's missing from the current snapshot, we should continue the discussion on framing a agreed policy. Thanks. On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Irvin Chen wrote: > Because it's what we currently used for our products. > And anyone can file a bug on bugzilla to fix those proble

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 6/9/15 5:03 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: 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 sec

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

Oh hey, an @mozilla address. Frankly, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I never said it was not their job to do this nor that they did not do their job. Please do not insinuate i said things i did not say. I am however indeed saying that there is no demonstrated merit to their

Re: Some people on Mozilla Reps have inappropriate City-State

The list*1 had been inside Firefox for decades in preference/content/language setting *2, and you can see the L10n-ed version of the list directly inside Firefox *3, So I believed it's a list get really good care by our L10n communities worldwide, qualify enough to be shipped with Firefox. *1 http

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 6/9/2015 5:03 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: 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 s

Re: Some people on Mozilla Reps have inappropriate City-State

On 09/06/2015 12:28, Irvin Chen wrote: The list*1 had been inside Firefox for decades in preference/content/language setting *2, Languages and countries/regions are not the same thing. The list in the preferences has language names, and only uses the regionNames list for identifying distincti

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 2015-06-09 02:41, bcl...@mozilla.com wrote: After that discussion, Pocket updated their privacy policy in early May to explain more precisely how they handle data. You can read Pocket's privacy policy here: https://getpocket.com/privacy. From the Pocket ToS: “[...] our Privacy Policy is not

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

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

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

How many times we saw Firefox rightly state: "No, we're not implementing this feature. There aren't enough users for it to warrant having to maintain the code. If you want this functionality, there are already add-ons for it available." ~some time later~ "Yes, we're including this other featur

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

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

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

Adblock plus and ublock origin are by far the most popular add-ons for Firefox. Will you be implementing those by default, too? Firefox has always been about empowering the user. You never dumb things down for them, you give them a choice. If there's an add-on we want, we find it or we create i

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 09/06/2015 14:47, snafumatt...@gmail.com wrote: Adblock plus and ublock origin are by far the most popular add-ons for Firefox. Will you be implementing those by default, too? Part of the effect of these add-ons (in terms of not being tracked and pageload improvements) is currently (being)

"Fox Yeah you do!"

Maybe Mozilla should look a little closer at pages shoved into the faces of their users. There have been comments regarding the Subject words alluding to offensive language. I thought I'd post them here as users have no place to communicate to Mozilla. "I was most disappointed to see that yo

Re: Some people on Mozilla Reps have inappropriate City-State

Gijs, We have 2 solution besides leave the issue raise again and again, First, we use the regionName list and extend it to as complete as we need. Second, we take GENC/ISO 3166 as base and we still need to set a procedure for our worldwide communities able to patch the list. Which ever we choose

Re: Some people on Mozilla Reps have inappropriate City-State

Irvin, I think it might help move this forward if someone started a proposal doc somewhere. Otherwise we won't get out of the debate stage. What you just said seems like a good start for one. It can also capture the questions we need to answer before deciding on a policy. On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 9 June 2015 at 07:04, Dan Stillman wrote: > > The Pocket integration seems almost purposely designed to blur the > distinction between Mozilla and Pocket. (As Pocket's CEO put it, "With the > exception of search, it’s rare for companies to be integrated this deeply > into the browser." [1]) >

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 6/9/15 3:19 PM, Mike Connor wrote: On 9 June 2015 at 07:04, Dan Stillman > wrote: The Pocket integration seems almost purposely designed to blur the distinction between Mozilla and Pocket. (As Pocket's CEO put it, "With the exception of search, it’s

Re: "Fox Yeah you do!"

Terry, I'm a volunteer so I'll start off by saying this isn't an official response. You're right, the play on the F*bomb is definitely there. But it doesn't have to be. It's also a play on Firefox. It's also just as removed as "G" rated plays on swear works - heck, darn, geez, gosh - you say them

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 9 June 2015 at 16:13, Dan Stillman wrote: > On 6/9/15 3:19 PM, Mike Connor wrote: > >> >> On 9 June 2015 at 07:04, Dan Stillman > dstill...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> The Pocket integration seems almost purposely designed to blur the >> distinction between Mozilla and Pocket. (As Pock

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

> > > > With search you can switch to DuckDuckGo with a couple clicks. With Share > > you choose from many different services. Pocket is integrated as a sole > > provider for a core feature. > > > > For now, yes. I don't believe that to be the long term plan. Until 1.0 > Firefox only shipped with

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 6/6/15 9:44 AM, mehmetaer...@gmail.com wrote: > Making a bug report dependent on a conversation on external & > proprietary Google Groups is against Mozilla Manifesto (#8, primacy > of transparent community-based processes). The governance group, along with many of our other fora, are primarily

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

No one from the Mozilla Foundation must have bothered to read the Terms of Service for use Pocket(TM) Technologies. This is critical because it has become clear from Oracle's handling of Java that just because software is released under an open source license doesn't mean that derived works wil