5 ms·

So Mozilla goofed, apologised of their own accord and corrected the mistake? And in response this dev is throwing his toys out of the pram? Do I read this right

So Mozilla goofed, apologised of their own accord and corrected the mistake? And in response this dev is throwing his toys out of the pram? Do I read this right?

jampekka 2y ago
I can see how having to jump pointless bureaucratic hoops in a volunteer project can cause throwing out toys.
- ForHackernews 2y ago
  What pointless hoops? The extension was restored.
  - jampekka 2y ago
    After pointless hoops. And the process seems to involve pointless hoops even when the review is not rejected. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197
    - ForHackernews 2y ago
      Again, what pointless hoops? > After re-reviewing your extension, we have determined that the previous decision was incorrect and based on that determination, we have restored your add-on.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- catapart 2y ago
  Yeah, it's kind of wild to see the general reaction to this being "the developer is being unreasonable". It's like... I, too, find it burdensome for a review that claims to be "manual" to suddenly flag a file my code has been utilizing for years, and puts the onus on me to refute it's findings. Not only is it trying to prove a negative, it's ridiculous that an unchanged file needs re-review for things like "is it minified?". As far as I can see, there are errors here and they are ALL on Mozilla's side. Better training, maybe, but probably just stop lying that a manual review has happened when it hasn't. And then, when you have whatever semi-automated review is being done flag a thing, then actually have a human review it. And, since that would be a firehose, implement simple standards to filter out spam and publish those standards - and what effect each infraction will have on the review process, including steps for remedy. Make them able to be completed as automatically as possible for the developers, so that you don't have to manually review, again. If it's a minification issue, require the devs to re-upload non-minified versions, check it automatically, and then allow the publish. I'm being simplistic and flip, but a reasonable generalization is just that bureaucracy should be imposed on the implementers of the bureaucracy, not the people who are trying to engage with it.
x0x0 2y ago
When Mozilla is being gifted enormous amounts of free labor, they should be more careful with the donor.
aaronmdjones 2y ago
You do not read this right. Mozilla goofed, then goofed again, then again, then again, then again, then the developer got fed up of having every single version reviewed incorrectly and pulled it, then Mozilla apologised. I'd do exactly the same thing.

So Mozilla goofed, apologised of their own accord and corrected the mistake? And in response this dev is throwing his toys out of the pram? Do I read this right?

jampekka 2y ago

I can see how having to jump pointless bureaucratic hoops in a volunteer project can cause throwing out toys.

ForHackernews 2y ago
What pointless hoops? The extension was restored.
- jampekka 2y ago
  After pointless hoops. And the process seems to involve pointless hoops even when the review is not rejected. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197
  - ForHackernews 2y ago
    Again, what pointless hoops? > After re-reviewing your extension, we have determined that the previous decision was incorrect and based on that determination, we have restored your add-on.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
catapart 2y ago
Yeah, it's kind of wild to see the general reaction to this being "the developer is being unreasonable". It's like... I, too, find it burdensome for a review that claims to be "manual" to suddenly flag a file my code has been utilizing for years, and puts the onus on me to refute it's findings. Not only is it trying to prove a negative, it's ridiculous that an unchanged file needs re-review for things like "is it minified?". As far as I can see, there are errors here and they are ALL on Mozilla's side. Better training, maybe, but probably just stop lying that a manual review has happened when it hasn't. And then, when you have whatever semi-automated review is being done flag a thing, then actually have a human review it. And, since that would be a firehose, implement simple standards to filter out spam and publish those standards - and what effect each infraction will have on the review process, including steps for remedy. Make them able to be completed as automatically as possible for the developers, so that you don't have to manually review, again. If it's a minification issue, require the devs to re-upload non-minified versions, check it automatically, and then allow the publish. I'm being simplistic and flip, but a reasonable generalization is just that bureaucracy should be imposed on the implementers of the bureaucracy, not the people who are trying to engage with it.

x0x0 2y ago

When Mozilla is being gifted enormous amounts of free labor, they should be more careful with the donor.

aaronmdjones 2y ago

You do not read this right. Mozilla goofed, then goofed again, then again, then again, then again, then the developer got fed up of having every single version reviewed incorrectly and pulled it, then Mozilla apologised. I'd do exactly the same thing.