4 ms·

72% is pretty impressive. I have only filed against Firefox, and my fix rate is less than 20%. Some of the rest are "won't fix" but many are still open, the old

by dn3500 3y ago

72% is pretty impressive. I have only filed against Firefox, and my fix rate is less than 20%. Some of the rest are "won't fix" but many are still open, the oldest at 16 years.

creesch 3y ago
Yeah I have the same experience with Firefox. I guess that their limited budgets has something to do with that. As well as context. I mostly ran into this with webextensions and various cases that a lot of extension developers likely run into that issue less often. It seems, from the outside, that web extensions just generally have a low priority within the team. Which seems, for webextensions, seems to be a very small team anyway as I kept seeing the same three names or so. Here is an example of one I was involved in (although I did not report it myself): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1380812 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1380812 Not as long as your 16 years, but still pretty old. To be fair, there are a few other related issues where work has been done. But all moves at a glacial pace. And yes, to be clear again, I realize why this doesn't get a lot of priority. It's still a frustrating endeavor.
- Hendrikto 3y ago
  > I guess that their limited budgets has something to do with that. Mozilla has a huge budget, they just squander it on exec pay and stupid things nobody wants.
  - jpgvm 3y ago
    Imagine how could the browser could be if they spent all the money that gets donated on the thing people actually donate because of, i.e the browser. It's nice they try to do other things but I don't need them to do that, there is EFF and other non-profits to handle most of the things the Mozilla foundation tries to do. Just stick to the browser and the mission.
    - creesch 3y ago
      I just posted this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39589402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39589402 tl;dr, whatever the foundation gets, it can't legally spend on the browser.
      - jpgvm 3y ago
        Yeah, this is exactly the problem.
  - creesch 3y ago
    Nope, or at the very least, much more complex than just that. Firefox is developed by the Mozilla Corporation, a for-profit corporation. This corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the 501(c)(3) nonprofit Mozilla Foundation. In order for an organization to be eligible for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, it has to have a “charitable mission”. So it can't just be a “normal” business that simply retains all profits and keeps public financial records. On top of that, if it is determined that the organization is allocating a “significant portion” of its resources to economic activity that does not directly service the nonprofit mission, then it can lose its nonprofit status. Also, lastly, an organization with a 501(c)(3) exemption is literally not allowed to funnel resources into assets which cannot be scrutinized (like a wholly owned for profit subsidiary). Long story short, literally the only money that Mozilla can use to support Firefox development is the money they get from its commercial ventures, and any profits these commercial ventures would theoretically be for the Mozilla Foundation to use to perform consumer advocacy, which is what they supposedly “really” do, at least as far as the IRS is concerned. So it is very likely that some of the "stupid things nobody wants" have been initiatives from the foundation. On top of that, the large majority of revenue of the Mozilla *Corporation* comes from Google as part of a search deal. This makes that income stream very precarious and uncertain. So, a lot of the remaining things on the list of "stupid things nobody wants" have been the result of the corporation attempting to branch out and find other, more sustainable sources of revenue. Not to say that all decisions made by the corporation have been to my liking either, but I figured I'd give this context.
    - NavinF 3y ago
      This is not an excuse. Either the nonprofit can have the charitable mission of building a free web browser or the corporation can accept donations that aren't tax deductible. Their leadership obviously wants to spend their money on stupid things nobody wants and chose their corporate structure accordingly
mey 3y ago
How do you calculate your fix rate if a product is deprecated/cancelled instead of fixed?

by dn3500 3y ago

72% is pretty impressive. I have only filed against Firefox, and my fix rate is less than 20%. Some of the rest are "won't fix" but many are still open, the oldest at 16 years.

creesch 3y ago

Yeah I have the same experience with Firefox. I guess that their limited budgets has something to do with that. As well as context. I mostly ran into this with webextensions and various cases that a lot of extension developers likely run into that issue less often. It seems, from the outside, that web extensions just generally have a low priority within the team. Which seems, for webextensions, seems to be a very small team anyway as I kept seeing the same three names or so. Here is an example of one I was involved in (although I did not report it myself): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1380812 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1380812 Not as long as your 16 years, but still pretty old. To be fair, there are a few other related issues where work has been done. But all moves at a glacial pace. And yes, to be clear again, I realize why this doesn't get a lot of priority. It's still a frustrating endeavor.

Hendrikto 3y ago
> I guess that their limited budgets has something to do with that. Mozilla has a huge budget, they just squander it on exec pay and stupid things nobody wants.
- jpgvm 3y ago
  Imagine how could the browser could be if they spent all the money that gets donated on the thing people actually donate because of, i.e the browser. It's nice they try to do other things but I don't need them to do that, there is EFF and other non-profits to handle most of the things the Mozilla foundation tries to do. Just stick to the browser and the mission.
  - creesch 3y ago
    I just posted this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39589402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39589402 tl;dr, whatever the foundation gets, it can't legally spend on the browser.
    - jpgvm 3y ago
      Yeah, this is exactly the problem.
- creesch 3y ago
  Nope, or at the very least, much more complex than just that. Firefox is developed by the Mozilla Corporation, a for-profit corporation. This corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the 501(c)(3) nonprofit Mozilla Foundation. In order for an organization to be eligible for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, it has to have a “charitable mission”. So it can't just be a “normal” business that simply retains all profits and keeps public financial records. On top of that, if it is determined that the organization is allocating a “significant portion” of its resources to economic activity that does not directly service the nonprofit mission, then it can lose its nonprofit status. Also, lastly, an organization with a 501(c)(3) exemption is literally not allowed to funnel resources into assets which cannot be scrutinized (like a wholly owned for profit subsidiary). Long story short, literally the only money that Mozilla can use to support Firefox development is the money they get from its commercial ventures, and any profits these commercial ventures would theoretically be for the Mozilla Foundation to use to perform consumer advocacy, which is what they supposedly “really” do, at least as far as the IRS is concerned. So it is very likely that some of the "stupid things nobody wants" have been initiatives from the foundation. On top of that, the large majority of revenue of the Mozilla *Corporation* comes from Google as part of a search deal. This makes that income stream very precarious and uncertain. So, a lot of the remaining things on the list of "stupid things nobody wants" have been the result of the corporation attempting to branch out and find other, more sustainable sources of revenue. Not to say that all decisions made by the corporation have been to my liking either, but I figured I'd give this context.
  - NavinF 3y ago
    This is not an excuse. Either the nonprofit can have the charitable mission of building a free web browser or the corporation can accept donations that aren't tax deductible. Their leadership obviously wants to spend their money on stupid things nobody wants and chose their corporate structure accordingly

mey 3y ago

How do you calculate your fix rate if a product is deprecated/cancelled instead of fixed?