[Project_owners] Clarification for a SeaMonkey User
axel at pike.org
Sat Sep 13 23:17:58 EDT 2003
Pete Collins wrote:
> Whew!!! Reading, Ben's, HJ's, Axel's and John's remarks I feel a bit
> *relieved* that i'm not the *only one* in the dark here. I was
> anticipating a barrage of negative criticism to my simple humble
> question. So my inclination that there is really no clear direction for
> the Mozilla project is not unfounded.
It's not a matter of direction, really. I bet the direction is clear.
There are a few things that need to shake out on the way, such as,
"What's a GRE", but despite of that, the direction is clear.
Have a single toolkit with a bunch of high profile applications using
*and sharing* that toolkit.
> Well, Mozilla technology is essential to the life of Mozdev and the work
> we all do here, so this is a very important matter of concern.
GRE should in theory make this easier. See bug
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206358 which should enable
you to write new applications without any platform dependent code.
> At least now I am *real clear* that the direction of Mozilla is indeed
> very unclear. This appears to be the side effect of a major transitonal
> period for Mozilla. It is also the result of not having a clear vision
> for Mozilla since the onset of the project.
> I'd say this is just a typical growth stage for an important Open Source
I'd say that both timing and, to some extent, priorities (in the sence
of "who's doing it when") got a bit lost. And I bet that having the
project being in both an expansion (new roadmap, Mozilla Foundation) and
a contraction (lots of people getting their priorities shaken) phase
simultaniously doesn't help.
The "new roadmap plan" was an attempt to share the direction of the
Mozilla Foundation with both Trolls and contributors. Trolls had their
fun on /., we (the developers) had some fun with SeaMonkey and frozen
trees. But the envisioned shift in priorities didn't come. Maybe because
the decision on that shift was done without the consent/contribution of
the developers themselves. On the other hand, there was only a small
chance to get the developers opinion. Starting a discussion on a public
forum would have been Troll-dominated, quickly driving developers out of
the discussion. There is really only the dinner-table to discuss stuff
like this. I bet even #mozilla would've been too public.
As Brian pointed out, the information is out there, though not all
information is only a single page and it might be hard to tell the
difference between proposal, fact and fiction at times. I bet that the
Mozilla Foundation will not just float another balloon without having
any reason to expect a better match of fact and fiction. Hiring Ben
might have taken some gas out of that balloon, though.
So we should ask ourselves if we really helped as much as we could have.
I wonder how many of mozdev are actually working on things like thinking
on design to get around the #ifdef's or getting the GRE to be usable by
outside stuff. I bet only the owners of fire- and thunderbird think
about the ifdefs, and the GRE stuff is mostly handled by bsmedberg and
Considering this, I see no justification for the harsh flames I had to
read in response to Pete's mail.
More information about the Project_owners