Sounds like a great idea to me!
Gavin
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Clint Talbert wrote:
> When we moved to the "inbound" model of tree management, the Tree Sheriffs
> became a crucial part of our engineering infrastructure. The primary
> responsibility of the Sheriffs is and will always be
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Taras Glek wrote:
> However, I'd like to stay on topic of updating planet feeds. Lets fix the
> approval/addition process, discussing planet future is out of scope for
> solving this particular problem.
Agreed. I think fixing the majority of the problem is relativ
We're getting a bit far afield here, but there's no conflict with the
spec. The returnValue description you quote is an authoring guideline.
The requirements for user agents (described at
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/history.html#unloading-documents)
don't include dis
Safe Browsing has typically been considered its own toolkit
sub-module, and isn't a "content security policy" the same way CSP/MCB
are. I don't really have any objection to grouping it with the others
in a new module, though.
The "DOM" in your proposed Bugzilla component name seems misleading -
th
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> * Not shipping it by default.
> * Requiring explicit user content before downloading the CDM.
These are potentially misleading statements. What "shipping" means is
ambiguous, and we've not reached a conclusion on where exactly the
user c
> +1, we should do this. We might also want to move some more
> bugzilla components to the graveyard while we're at it.
Yes please!
Gavin
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Benjamin Smedberg
wrote:
>
> On 6/18/2014 8:20 PM, Johnny Stenback wrote:
>>
>> We have the following modules listed on our
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> This problem was present in the original, but: this implies that there's
> a trade-off between safety and user experience. I don't think that's so
> - you can have very usable, very privacy-respecting software. The
> difficult tradeoff is o
"Application Reputation" checking is a separate system from Safe
Browsing that shares some of the same characteristics but also behaves
differently in some cases.
The blog post you mention describes a scenario where "download
metadata" (described in more detail at
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security
The Firefox privacy policy does this:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/
Gavin
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Mike Hoye wrote:
> On 2014-07-25 3:55 PM, Asa Dotzler wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing-and-malware-protection-work
>>
>
> Do we ha
Looking at the existing Firefox privacy policy
(https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/) in more detail, the
download metadata behavior is already described there, under
"Security", "Firefox Forgery and Attack Protection".
Gavin
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:10 PM
Currently, the process of obtaining Mozilla commit access is driven by a
loosely-defined set of trusted community volunteers who monitor new
requests in the relevant Bugzilla component (mozilla.org::Repository
Account Requests).
In practice, this important job is currently performed largely by Mar
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Yvan Boily wrote:
> While I agree that there might be value, I don't think that value would be
> worth the negative feedback from the change in perception that this logging
> would trigger.
I disagree. I think the benefits are real, and that you're vastly
overstat
oned, and where they aren't it's easy enough to reach out to
the channel owner and change that.
Gavin
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Yvan Boily wrote:
>> While I agree that there might be value, I don't think th
You can ask glob to add logbot to it (http://logs.glob.uno/). It can "go
away at any time", sure, but that doesn't seem like a big deal in practice.
Gavin
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:29 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Friday 2015-01-23 17:08 -0800, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> >
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Benjamin Kerensa
wrote:
> Right and my proposal is to have global policy including which channels
> must be exempt due to sensitive discussions (I can think of a handful
> myself) and then create a process for starting logging and opting out of
> channel logging b
2014 at 7:28 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> Currently, the process of obtaining Mozilla commit access is driven by a
> loosely-defined set of trusted community volunteers who monitor new
> requests in the relevant Bugzilla component (mozilla.org::Repository
> Account Requests).
>
> I
Hi Greg,
Did this request already get resolved? I see you've recently been
committing to the Mozilla Rhino repository:
https://github.com/mozilla/rhino/commits?author=gbrail
For the purposes of updating the ownership info at
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/All#Rhino, it would be ideal to get
sig
ino/Community
>
> the community hasn't been using the "js-engine.rhino" group for a long time
> due to spam issues, but it sounds like people are posting on it again.
>
> Is there a way that we can shut that old group down and redirect people to
> only one group?
>
We fixed the "sandbox safebrowsing cookie" bug as of Firefox 27
(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368255), which shipped
in February 2014.
Presumably the "{for not fx27}" syntax in that markup reflects that.
So that the line appears if you use very old versions of Firefox,
since those
Almost 4 years ago, Mike Shaver handed me the reigns of Firefox module
ownership [1]. At the time, he said:
> While being an employee of Mozilla is by no means a necessity for module
> ownership in Mozilla, the Firefox module is so critical and so active
> that it really deserves the attention of
I've removed the stale "project homepage" link from the Firefox module
page, but the rest of the page is fully up to date and accurate.
Gavin
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Eric Shepherd wrote:
> I've been looking through the module list
> (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/All) since we're try
Congrats new Dave!
Gavin
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Dave Camp wrote:
> No objections were raised in the governance thread last week[1], so I'm
> going to make it official: Dave Townsend is the new module owner for the
> Firefox module.
>
> Thanks and congratulations to Dave,
>
> -old dave
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> But I was asking about the additional reason about keeping the brand
> intact. What's that about?
I don't know of any such reason.
Gavin
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
ht
Sounds good to me!
Gavin
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Matt Brubeck wrote:
> I would like to propose a new module for the Firefox for Metro project.
> This is a new browser UI, designed for Windows 8 touch-screen computers.
> The code for the browser was developed on the "elm" project branch
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Axel Hecht wrote:
> I have some implementation questions, too, where's the best place to discuss
> those? m.d.a.firefox or firefox-dev, or some other forum?
firefox-dev.
(But in case it answers your question: I had a quick IRC discussion
with mkelly - he pointed
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Rubén Martín
wrote:
> * Don't continue or don't start a development because "we don't have
> resources" and no volunteer was asked for help.
This particular point is a tricky one: "we don't have the resources
for this project" is often confused with "we don't
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
> I agree it needs to be a little more complex, but in the coding example
> it's easy to see if the work produced is comparable.
Not really. And even if it was, "work produced" is not the only factor
that matters (for employment decisions or f
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Stormy Peters wrote:
> Ownership in an open source project implies that the owner can make
> decisions and decide what is in and out. I thought Mozilla modules were
> equivalent to open source project maintainers or owners. But if they just
> have check in authori
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> I don't think that "the status quo" is that "the technical owner is the
> final decision-maker", which would be implied if we created these
> modules to cover each web property without at least a slot for "content
> owner".
That implicatio
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 19/04/13 20:34, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Gervase Markham
> wrote:
> >> I don't think that "the status quo" is that "the technical owner is the
> >> f
30 matches
Mail list logo
