5 ms·

> Is this a hypothesis that we can specify and test? Is this how we would approach this problem? It sounds more like a cynical write-off, not a actual strategy

> Is this a hypothesis that we can specify and test? Is this how we would approach this problem? It sounds more like a cynical write-off, not a actual strategy There is nothing to test, it's why I stopped using Firefox. Check the Mozilla foundation page for all the crap they fund instead of the browser. Look how much the UI looks like Chrome, even little things like clicking the searchbar expanding it outside its bounds. > I'm suggesting, instead of writing off Firefox, we (you specifically, and me and whomever else wants to) start engaging with Mozilla to help figure this stuff out They don't listen to feedback. When Apple (the company known for telling people they were holding their phones wrong) introduced the safari tab-redesign that merged tabs with the searchbar, it was nearly universally disliked and they backtracked on the change. Apple of all companies backtracked on a bad design. Mozilla? They just keep on going. When Nintendo was struggling due to the failure of the Wii U, Satoru Iwata took on a massive pay cut to avoid firing people. Mozilla? Fired the Servo team and raised executive compensation. > In 2020 Mozilla announced it would cut 25% of its worldwide staff of nearly 1,000 to reduce costs. Firefox has fallen from 30% market share to 4% in 10 years. Despite this, executive pay increased 400%, with Mitchell Baker, Mozilla’s top executive, receiving $2.4m in 2018.

tedivm 3y ago
Firing the Servo team was probably the dumbest thing they could have done.
kyleee 3y ago
Yep, they’d need to fire Baker to right the ship at this point, among other things
- wolpoli 3y ago
  Under section 3.5 of the Mozilla foundation Bylaws [1], Baker could be removed by the board, which consists of Mitchell Baker, Brian Behlendorf, Helen Turvey, Nicole Wong, Amy Keating, and Mark Surman [2]. Note that the directors are elected by the directors in the first place so sadly, it is unlikely to happen. [1]: https://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-bylaws.pdf https://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-bylaws.pd... [2]: https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/who-we-are/leadership/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/who-we-are/leadership/
jjav 3y ago
> Check the Mozilla foundation page for all the crap they fund instead of the browser. Notwithstanding that, they still put out firefox. And Firefox is a far superior browser to any of the alternatives if you care about user-centric control and privacy. So to anyone who cares even a little about being able about these things, supporting Firefox is the way to go. If a mythical even-better browser shows up, great. But here and now, it's Firefox, or completely surrender the web to commercial interests.
- the_third_wave 3y ago
  > Notwithstanding that, they still put out firefox Firefox was created by pre-Baker Mozilla which was an organisation focused mostly on - to coopt the terminology used by those who coopted Mozilla later - "software justice". When Eich was ousted (for voicing an opinion he shared with people like Barack Obama [1]) and Baker took his place she set a course towards different goals: Mozilla was going to focus more on social justice because it was not enough to only build software. She clearly did not realise - or did not care - that it was through creating viable open alternatives to proprietary browsers and related software that Mozilla was in fact doing the best it could towards achieving the aim of a more just world. Baker needs to be ousted, she can go lead some NGO somewhere if she wants to fly social justice flags. Let Mozilla be led by those who understand that software freedom is an integral part of freedom of information access and an open internet which are essential to counteract the tendency towards authoritarianism which has plagued society since the dawn of time. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/3375059/Barack-Obama-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/33750...
  - the_third_wave 3y ago
    To those who feel the need to vote down instead of coming with counter-arguments I want to ask what you think is wrong in my reasoning. As far as I can see Baker has been a net-negative for Mozilla both due the politicisation of the organisation as well as her financial mis-management. Tell me where I'm wrong instead of trying to get my message greyed-out. I was there (at the IETF conference) when the Netscape source was released, was among the first to build the code, have done my part with testing and patching and still use Firefox. I see Baker's mismanagement and misdirection of Mozilla as a tragic mistake. What are your arguments?

tedivm 3y ago

Firing the Servo team was probably the dumbest thing they could have done.

kyleee 3y ago

Yep, they’d need to fire Baker to right the ship at this point, among other things

wolpoli 3y ago
Under section 3.5 of the Mozilla foundation Bylaws [1], Baker could be removed by the board, which consists of Mitchell Baker, Brian Behlendorf, Helen Turvey, Nicole Wong, Amy Keating, and Mark Surman [2]. Note that the directors are elected by the directors in the first place so sadly, it is unlikely to happen. [1]: https://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-bylaws.pdf https://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-bylaws.pd... [2]: https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/who-we-are/leadership/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/who-we-are/leadership/

jjav 3y ago

> Check the Mozilla foundation page for all the crap they fund instead of the browser. Notwithstanding that, they still put out firefox. And Firefox is a far superior browser to any of the alternatives if you care about user-centric control and privacy. So to anyone who cares even a little about being able about these things, supporting Firefox is the way to go. If a mythical even-better browser shows up, great. But here and now, it's Firefox, or completely surrender the web to commercial interests.

the_third_wave 3y ago
> Notwithstanding that, they still put out firefox Firefox was created by pre-Baker Mozilla which was an organisation focused mostly on - to coopt the terminology used by those who coopted Mozilla later - "software justice". When Eich was ousted (for voicing an opinion he shared with people like Barack Obama [1]) and Baker took his place she set a course towards different goals: Mozilla was going to focus more on social justice because it was not enough to only build software. She clearly did not realise - or did not care - that it was through creating viable open alternatives to proprietary browsers and related software that Mozilla was in fact doing the best it could towards achieving the aim of a more just world. Baker needs to be ousted, she can go lead some NGO somewhere if she wants to fly social justice flags. Let Mozilla be led by those who understand that software freedom is an integral part of freedom of information access and an open internet which are essential to counteract the tendency towards authoritarianism which has plagued society since the dawn of time. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/3375059/Barack-Obama-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/33750...
- the_third_wave 3y ago
  To those who feel the need to vote down instead of coming with counter-arguments I want to ask what you think is wrong in my reasoning. As far as I can see Baker has been a net-negative for Mozilla both due the politicisation of the organisation as well as her financial mis-management. Tell me where I'm wrong instead of trying to get my message greyed-out. I was there (at the IETF conference) when the Netscape source was released, was among the first to build the code, have done my part with testing and patching and still use Firefox. I see Baker's mismanagement and misdirection of Mozilla as a tragic mistake. What are your arguments?