5 ms·

You don't have to trust me, that's why I linked to the source. Check out L21-24 in bootstrap.js. You can verify that this is the same code as your own local co

You don't have to trust me, that's why I linked to the source. Check out L21-24 in bootstrap.js. You can verify that this is the same code as your own local copy of the add-on by visiting about:debugging, clicking "enable add-on debugging," and hitting "Debug" under the Looking Glass add-on. Here's a press release confirming that we're pulling the add-on: https://gizmodo.com/after-blowback-firefox-will-move-mr-robot-extension-t-1821354314 https://gizmodo.com/after-blowback-firefox-will-move-mr-robo... I'm an engineer in Developer Relations. I'm not in management, I wasn't in the decision chain for this. I'm not here to defend that decision. I'm just here to try to explain, factually, the technical aspects of what happened, and to then reflect your sentiments internally.

mulmen 9y ago
I appreciate you taking the time and the work you do. Let me state the obvious for your management: violating user trust is unacceptable. I expect Mozilla to be user-centric but I can no longer take that for granted. This is a very dangerous action because it's not something that can be taken back. The addon can be removed but it shows very poor judgement on the part of Mozilla leadership and now I have to doubt all future motives.
- callahad 9y ago
  I can assure you that such a sentiment has been expressed, and that the discussion is still active.
  - beart 9y ago
    Can you provide more information on what is being discussed and what conclusions are being reached? From an outsider, it seems pretty cut-and-dry that this was a mistake and it should never happen again. If that premise is accepted, there really isn't much room for discussion. In the words of Tom Hanks - "I am not a smart man", so can you provide more insight into what is being discussed?
    - scrollaway 9y ago
      > If that premise is accepted, there really isn't much room for discussion. How do you make sure it never happens again? (That question alone deserves a lot of discussion)
  - chris_wot 9y ago
    Then I suggest that you open the bugs that are now private that discuss this.
hitekker 9y ago
When someone says "I don't trust you", "I don't believe you", spews a series of questions, and then responds by reiterating their statements without reference to your answers, that person is not so much listening to your perspective, as they are fantasizing about stepping on your face. I actually appreciate your thoughts, but maybe it would be better to let Mozilla, the company, respond in a full blogpost. One man does not stand well against an internet mob out for blood.
- ajv35 9y ago
  >I actually appreciate your thoughts, but maybe it would be better to let Mozilla, the company, respond in a full blogpost. I agree, callahad is not responsible for this fiasco but I'm willing to bet Mozilla's response is gonna look something like this: https://m.imgur.com/obGMl8A https://m.imgur.com/obGMl8A They keep pulling the same shit time after time... For me, it's time to abandon ship... (and I'm really sad to say that)
bluefox 9y ago
What are you engineering? Mozilla's relationship with other developers?

mulmen 9y ago

I appreciate you taking the time and the work you do. Let me state the obvious for your management: violating user trust is unacceptable. I expect Mozilla to be user-centric but I can no longer take that for granted. This is a very dangerous action because it's not something that can be taken back. The addon can be removed but it shows very poor judgement on the part of Mozilla leadership and now I have to doubt all future motives.

callahad 9y ago
I can assure you that such a sentiment has been expressed, and that the discussion is still active.
- beart 9y ago
  Can you provide more information on what is being discussed and what conclusions are being reached? From an outsider, it seems pretty cut-and-dry that this was a mistake and it should never happen again. If that premise is accepted, there really isn't much room for discussion. In the words of Tom Hanks - "I am not a smart man", so can you provide more insight into what is being discussed?
  - scrollaway 9y ago
    > If that premise is accepted, there really isn't much room for discussion. How do you make sure it never happens again? (That question alone deserves a lot of discussion)
- chris_wot 9y ago
  Then I suggest that you open the bugs that are now private that discuss this.

hitekker 9y ago

When someone says "I don't trust you", "I don't believe you", spews a series of questions, and then responds by reiterating their statements without reference to your answers, that person is not so much listening to your perspective, as they are fantasizing about stepping on your face. I actually appreciate your thoughts, but maybe it would be better to let Mozilla, the company, respond in a full blogpost. One man does not stand well against an internet mob out for blood.

ajv35 9y ago
>I actually appreciate your thoughts, but maybe it would be better to let Mozilla, the company, respond in a full blogpost. I agree, callahad is not responsible for this fiasco but I'm willing to bet Mozilla's response is gonna look something like this: https://m.imgur.com/obGMl8A https://m.imgur.com/obGMl8A They keep pulling the same shit time after time... For me, it's time to abandon ship... (and I'm really sad to say that)

bluefox 9y ago

What are you engineering? Mozilla's relationship with other developers?