5 ms·

I can’t fault gorhill for not wanting to play the “give large rich organization infinite second chances” game. Sometimes enough is enough even if you think you

I can’t fault gorhill for not wanting to play the “give large rich organization infinite second chances” game. Sometimes enough is enough even if you think you’d act differently in his shoes. > Mozilla apologized No they didn’t. Now I’m not here to play apology police or anything. But that’s just a perfunctory customer service voice statement which happened to include the word “apologize”. And that’s fine. Nobody expects more. We can acknowledge it for what it is tho.

latexr 2y ago
What could the email have said that would have made you believe they had apologised? If the literal string “we apologize” isn’t it, what is?
- nicce 2y ago
  "Statistically your extensions are one of the most used on Firefox. We will handle all related matters with higher priority and care in the future, and are deeply sorry about this."
- amiga386 2y ago
  "Our review processes are not fit for purpose. We commit to replacing them with ones which acknowledge our entire ecosystem is built on the goodwill of unpaid volunteers, and we must not squander their time or resources. People like you are our lifeblood and we must not lose your trust." "We admit we used automated scanning here and tried to pass it off as human review. We got caught. Badly. All our future scans will have to pass our own internal reviews before we make demands of extension authors." these sorts of things
  - latexr 2y ago
    Come on, be realistic. They’re not going to grovel and humiliate themselves over it, especially on a first apology contact. Expecting that kind of response would be ridiculous. The other comment was much more plausible. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41711187 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41711187 I’m interested in what the original commenter thought, though.
    - amiga386 2y ago
      The anodyne ass-covering apology they did send out, is massively more humiliating for Mozilla than a sincere mea-culpa would have been. Hill made their initial emails public and the discussion of AMO's incompetence had already happened. Mozilla have been able to see this and formulate a response. Their response was not a full PR face-saving, it was a single further email from the AMO review system. That speaks volumes. Dear Mr Hill sorry we are such idiots. Now please reply to us so you comply with the mandatory review process governed by idiots. Our policies require that we do not unilaterally fix any mistakes we unilaterally made. We must first waste more of your time to acertain that you agree our direction is the right one. Yours Sincerely The Idiots https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issuecomment-2383629057 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issueco...
      - latexr 2y ago
        Look, I’m not taking Mozilla’s side. As should be obvious by my other comments on this thread, I think Raymond Hill should do what they think is right for themselves and the project. But I’m trying to have a productive conversation on what would be a realistic response that Mozilla could have plausibly sent that would show true remorse and constitute a proper apology. Insulting them and giving absurd examples that would never happen does not advance the discussion. I’m not interested in unabashed mocking. There are people on the other side too, it doesn’t cost anything to have a little empathy. Yes, Mozilla is in the wrong here, no one disagrees. How about we discuss what they could’ve done right?
        amiga386 2y ago
        That's what my mooted better-apology email covered. Acknowledge the failings of their processes. Mozilla should stop thinking they're a big swinging dick of a "platform" like Google and Apple are, instead accept they're reliant on continuing donations of time and effort by volunteers and it needs to keep them sweet. Edit: and if they want to continue thinking they're a "platform", they need to invest in more and better staff for doing these reviews they insist on. They need to accept that false positives are just as bad, if not worse, than false negatives.
- finnthehuman 2y ago
  Why does it matter if they apologize? Are there brownie points that make a rote ineffectual interaction somehow better if that check box can be checked? > What could the email have said If the goal is finding the right magic incantation for apology, then answer to your question is “nothing”. If it’s not, then the answer is “almost anything”.
  - latexr 2y ago
    An apology is an admission of wrongdoing and shows remorse for one’s actions. It means the perpetrator is committing to improving themselves and not make the same mistake. You can’t change a mistake in the past, but you can promise to do better in the feature. So yes, apologies matters. It is baffling, and honestly worrying, that this has to be explained. It is important to realise the people steering the apology are not the same ones that caused the offence. The organisation is the same, but you can’t control what every single individual does.
    - finnthehuman 2y ago
      > It is baffling, and honestly worrying, that this has to be explained. Hey man, you’re the one that seems to be of the impression that the person sending form letter extension review responses is in a position in Mozilla to be able to do any of the shit you just said apologizes represent. I asked what’s it matter if they tick the apology box because they can’t actually apologize. I just don’t get why, in my previous post, I was supposed to pretend like the person who wrote that “we apologize” statement even intended to apologize. —- And in the odd chance the person who sent that email is in that position (or it’s a personal apology limited to their own reviewing failures) they need to use their words and distinguish themselves from a prefunctory customer service script. Rote apologies are not apologies, they’re simply someone saying what they believe are the right polite words for a situation.
      - latexr 2y ago
        > the impression that the person sending form letter extension review responses is in a position in Mozilla to be able to do any of the shit you just said apologizes represent. Yeah, that’s fair. > Rote apologies are not apologies, they’re simply someone saying what they believe are the right polite words for a situation. I agree. And rereading the email I also agree that their apology was lacklustre to say the least. Initially that seemed to be to have come from a position of authority, but I see I was wrong. My only disagreement is that I do think there is some apology that would be valid. Something like a personalised email (not from a form) from someone with a modicum of power (e.g. the manager of the add-ons division). Note, however, I’m not saying a valid apology must be accepted.

latexr 2y ago

What could the email have said that would have made you believe they had apologised? If the literal string “we apologize” isn’t it, what is?

nicce 2y ago
"Statistically your extensions are one of the most used on Firefox. We will handle all related matters with higher priority and care in the future, and are deeply sorry about this."
amiga386 2y ago
"Our review processes are not fit for purpose. We commit to replacing them with ones which acknowledge our entire ecosystem is built on the goodwill of unpaid volunteers, and we must not squander their time or resources. People like you are our lifeblood and we must not lose your trust." "We admit we used automated scanning here and tried to pass it off as human review. We got caught. Badly. All our future scans will have to pass our own internal reviews before we make demands of extension authors." these sorts of things
- latexr 2y ago
  Come on, be realistic. They’re not going to grovel and humiliate themselves over it, especially on a first apology contact. Expecting that kind of response would be ridiculous. The other comment was much more plausible. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41711187 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41711187 I’m interested in what the original commenter thought, though.
  - amiga386 2y ago
    The anodyne ass-covering apology they did send out, is massively more humiliating for Mozilla than a sincere mea-culpa would have been. Hill made their initial emails public and the discussion of AMO's incompetence had already happened. Mozilla have been able to see this and formulate a response. Their response was not a full PR face-saving, it was a single further email from the AMO review system. That speaks volumes. Dear Mr Hill sorry we are such idiots. Now please reply to us so you comply with the mandatory review process governed by idiots. Our policies require that we do not unilaterally fix any mistakes we unilaterally made. We must first waste more of your time to acertain that you agree our direction is the right one. Yours Sincerely The Idiots https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issuecomment-2383629057 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issueco...
    - latexr 2y ago
      Look, I’m not taking Mozilla’s side. As should be obvious by my other comments on this thread, I think Raymond Hill should do what they think is right for themselves and the project. But I’m trying to have a productive conversation on what would be a realistic response that Mozilla could have plausibly sent that would show true remorse and constitute a proper apology. Insulting them and giving absurd examples that would never happen does not advance the discussion. I’m not interested in unabashed mocking. There are people on the other side too, it doesn’t cost anything to have a little empathy. Yes, Mozilla is in the wrong here, no one disagrees. How about we discuss what they could’ve done right?
      - amiga386 2y ago
        That's what my mooted better-apology email covered. Acknowledge the failings of their processes. Mozilla should stop thinking they're a big swinging dick of a "platform" like Google and Apple are, instead accept they're reliant on continuing donations of time and effort by volunteers and it needs to keep them sweet. Edit: and if they want to continue thinking they're a "platform", they need to invest in more and better staff for doing these reviews they insist on. They need to accept that false positives are just as bad, if not worse, than false negatives.
finnthehuman 2y ago
Why does it matter if they apologize? Are there brownie points that make a rote ineffectual interaction somehow better if that check box can be checked? > What could the email have said If the goal is finding the right magic incantation for apology, then answer to your question is “nothing”. If it’s not, then the answer is “almost anything”.
- latexr 2y ago
  An apology is an admission of wrongdoing and shows remorse for one’s actions. It means the perpetrator is committing to improving themselves and not make the same mistake. You can’t change a mistake in the past, but you can promise to do better in the feature. So yes, apologies matters. It is baffling, and honestly worrying, that this has to be explained. It is important to realise the people steering the apology are not the same ones that caused the offence. The organisation is the same, but you can’t control what every single individual does.
  - finnthehuman 2y ago
    > It is baffling, and honestly worrying, that this has to be explained. Hey man, you’re the one that seems to be of the impression that the person sending form letter extension review responses is in a position in Mozilla to be able to do any of the shit you just said apologizes represent. I asked what’s it matter if they tick the apology box because they can’t actually apologize. I just don’t get why, in my previous post, I was supposed to pretend like the person who wrote that “we apologize” statement even intended to apologize. —- And in the odd chance the person who sent that email is in that position (or it’s a personal apology limited to their own reviewing failures) they need to use their words and distinguish themselves from a prefunctory customer service script. Rote apologies are not apologies, they’re simply someone saying what they believe are the right polite words for a situation.
    - latexr 2y ago
      > the impression that the person sending form letter extension review responses is in a position in Mozilla to be able to do any of the shit you just said apologizes represent. Yeah, that’s fair. > Rote apologies are not apologies, they’re simply someone saying what they believe are the right polite words for a situation. I agree. And rereading the email I also agree that their apology was lacklustre to say the least. Initially that seemed to be to have come from a position of authority, but I see I was wrong. My only disagreement is that I do think there is some apology that would be valid. Something like a personalised email (not from a form) from someone with a modicum of power (e.g. the manager of the add-ons division). Note, however, I’m not saying a valid apology must be accepted.