Re: automating planet additions

Sorry to arrive late here but I have a problem with anything "automated" in that space because some blogs are from time to time reaching limits... When I saw appear on pmo the blog article by Matěj Cepl "Blessed are the poor" that is strictly religious, I was really upset. I don't want to have to

Re: automating planet additions

On 30/10/2013 09:10, Reed Loden wrote: The Planet team has always felt that Planet is meant to encompass whatever people wish to share from their blogs, not just Mozilla stuff. Not always. When my blog was syndicated on pmo, I was asked to create a specific feed for english-only code-or-web-st

Re: automating planet additions

On 30/10/2013 15:05, Gervase Markham wrote: Why are we adults enough to read what we want to read and avoid reading what we don't want to read for every subject _except_ those you classify as proselytism? Is there something about proselytism that turns readers into children? :-) Smiley aside G

Re: automating planet additions

Le mercredi 30 octobre 2013 17:37:18 UTC+1, Reed Loden a écrit : > I'm unable to find your original planet addition bug, but if that did > happen to you, I'm sorry that was the case. You are more than welcome to > submit a bug to modify your feed URL to be less specific (though, might > be useful

Re: sponsored new tab tiles - please tell me this is a (bad) joke

On 12/02/14 22:15, Fred Wenzel wrote: > Glyn Moody, a long-time friend of Mozilla in the press, expresses the > Mozilla community's worries very well, go give it a read: > > Let me add just one thing: it'

Re: sponsored new tab tiles - please tell me this is a (bad) joke

On 12/02/14 23:21, Fred Wenzel wrote: > I would be careful with the phrasing. Calling these new tab tiles "ads" > is misleading as it invokes mental images of popups and flashing > Times-Square-style billboards. > > In the case of the sensationalistic tech press, this misinterpretation > is quite

Re: sponsored new tab tiles - please tell me this is a (bad) joke

On 13/02/14 07:10, Fred Wenzel wrote: > Throwing me into a vague "corporate blah-blah" bucket however is > uncalled for, nor claiming I am not part of the Mozilla community. Fred, I never said you're not a part of it, how can you imagine I can think that? "sponsored tiles" are almost universally

Re: sponsored new tab tiles - please tell me this is a (bad) joke

On 13/02/14 07:44, tofumatt wrote: > Also, you can't apologize by saying "sorry you took what I said as an > attack". You're either sorry you said something wrong or you're not; don't > apologize for someone mistaking what you said. That's so disingenuous. Fred - who I highly respect - and I di

Re: Mozilla has failed itself

On 05/04/14 16:47, Sheeri Cabral wrote: > And btw, it is being widely reported that he was asked for his resignation. (disclaimer: I am not a Mozilla employee, I am a former Netscaper, old-time Mozillian, author of Nvu, BlueGriffon, many add-ons and many 3rd-party software created as a contract

Re: Committed to Diversity????

On 06/04/14 03:50, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > But I won't leave you empty-handed. As far as I know there were five > employees -- out of approximately 1,000 -- who tweeted that Brendan > should resign as CEO. Here are six blog posts from employees who > supported Brendan's appointment, and blogg

Another perspective...

Let me look at what happened from another perspective, including the one of an old mozillian who was at Netscape. I think Mozilla is, quite surprisingly, facing the kind of duality Netscape faced: it was a corporation, with market goals, but based on an Open Source community and its culture. Mozill

Amazon...

Hello, Am I the only one seeing very disturbing similarities between: FirefoxOS and Fire OS the font used in Amazon's "Fire" and the font used in Firefox (not exactly the same but still very similar) The colors in http://www.androidheadlines.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Amazon-Fire-P

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 18/06/2015 18:39, Fred Wenzel wrote: > I'll mention that "voting with your feet" doesn't have to mean choosing a > different browser in this context. Merely not using Pocket will suffice. > > You can, after all, right click that button and choose to remove it from > the menu bar without ever h

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 25/06/2015 03:14, Ryan Kelly wrote: > On 24/06/2015 06:52, Angly Cat wrote: >> I think that you, Ryan, acting as a mozillian, are being too aggressive > > In which case, it seems I'm failing badly at two things that are very > important to me: > > 1) Communicating my thoughts and questions

Re: Thunderbird, the future, mozilla-central and comm-central

Hello Mitchell, So I'd like to discuss some of the technical details in that "separation" because I don't completely understand them, it's probably only my fault. A few facts first: 1. Thunderbird is a standalone application embedding Gecko and deeply relying on XPCOM, XUL (and XBL), XUL-based

Re: Thunderbird, the future, mozilla-central and comm-central

On 04/12/2015 06:32, Douglas Turner wrote: > Hey Daniel, Hi my friend! > a. all the underlying technologies of Thunderbird's world (XPCOM, XUL, >XBL, XUL-based add-ons) are on the verge of being deprecated. Is the >announced move a way to decouple faster, as it seems reading

Re: Thunderbird, the future, mozilla-central and comm-central

On 04/12/2015 18:09, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote: > Ultimately though, I don't know that any of this is all that relevant to > this thread. We won't have a XUL-less Firefox "for a while", and the > conversation about Thunderbird's future is more immediately coupled to > build system issues, mozilla-cent

Re: Thunderbird, the future, mozilla-central and comm-central

On 04/12/2015 20:43, R Kent James wrote: > I think that you are seeing what is the common experience of people who > are trying to work with Mozilla technologies. That is, there are rumors > and statements about plans to deprecate some feature or technology, but > rarely any concrete schedule. Oft

Re: Thunderbird, the future, mozilla-central and comm-central

On 05/12/2015 16:44, Mark Banner wrote: > Note that for add-ons dropping xul etc has been already communicated as > part of other plans: > > https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-developing-firefox-add-ons/ And this is another huge threat to our businesses that was not discuss

Re: Thunderbird, the future, mozilla-central and comm-central

On 06/12/2015 12:11, Panos Astithas wrote: > a) a blog post about a specific plan with a timeline, decided and delivered > from above, or > b) an honest discussion in public about our "desires" and "opinions" that > will culminate in a specific plan. > > Both are reasonable requests and it's fine

Re: Thunderbird, the future, mozilla-central and comm-central

On 06/12/2015 15:11, David Bruant wrote: > Have you signed a contract with Mozilla in which you made sure Mozilla > could not make moves that would threaten your business? (I assume you > haven't as I assume Mozilla would not sign such a contract, maybe I'm > wrong, but you would probably be enfor

Re: Thunderbird, the future, mozilla-central and comm-central

On 11/12/2015 21:26, Ben Bucksch wrote: > Doug, you can't believe how relieved I am to hear that. That's what I > had always understood. > HTML5 is the future, we'll slowly migrate to there. I hope that Servo > will be our renderer in the not too distant future, and I'd be happy to > see XBL event

Re: Getting attention to unowned modules, especially Core::Editor, Core::Serializers and Core::Spelling checker

Le vendredi 26 février 2016 19:02:02 UTC+1, Jet Villegas a écrit : > Thanks for posting this! > > I share your concern about un-owned Core components. Ehsan Akhgari, Andrew > Overholt, and I are meeting next week to make plans for Core::Editor. I'll > make a note to also discuss Serializer and Spe

Re: Changes to FF privacy policy for SMS Marketing

Le 26/07/12 00:33, Winston Bowden a écrit : > We'd like to make the decision on how we'll move forward in one week. If you > see any reason to lengthen the posting period, please let me know and we'll > consider an extension. Mozilla has a few feet in the European Union. According to most euro

governance@lists.mozilla.org

On 19/09/12 01:25, Blake Kaplan wrote: I would like to note that although on paper a meritocracy sounds like a goal to achieve, it may not be so. From what I have seen, meritocracies tend to attract like-minded people and consequently drive themselves against diversity. Why is this specific to

Re: Proposal for Creating an "Emeritus" Status

On 20/11/12 05:50, Mitchell Baker wrote: I've found there are two different ideas that I may have confused. So, theres a Revised Proposal below! One idea is a way of identifying someone who was a module owner / community leader but no longer is. That's a factual matter. The other idea is a wa

Re: Firefox and Christmas

On 26/12/12 10:45, Gervase Markham wrote: > So I don't agree that a reference to Santa is a religious reference. It *is* a religious reference. In my family, Santa and Xmas represent absolutely nothing because our background is not christian. > But even if it were, I also don't agree that refere

Re: Handing off Style System module ownership to Cameron McCormack

Le jeudi 4 janvier 2018 13:29:09 UTC+1, Jet Villegas a écrit : > Congratulations, Cameron. Rewriting modules has the nice effect of > improving the bus factor when new contributors pick up the design and > implementation. Let’s carve deeper into the Layout engine! If I believe Twitter, Cameron wa