3 ms·

"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 v

"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.
      - latexr 2y ago
        > That's what my mooted better-apology email covered. Acknowledge the failings of their processes. But you did it in a way that ridicules Mozilla. It was an unrealistic example of something they would never have sent. For what? There’s no point to that. Surely you can come up with something that is apologetic, honest, real, and that a manager at a company could approve. I was looking for something sensical, not a caricature. > Mozilla should stop thinking (…) That, and most of your post, gets to the heart of it. You’re displeased with Mozilla and want them to look bad. Look, I get it, I don’t like Mozilla’s direction either, I am plenty critical of them. But you can be critical and constructive. Your comments that made them look like absolute bozos are the kind of rhetoric any Mozilla employee would skip over as not being serious. I would like Mozilla to be better, not just burn them to the ground.
- saurik 2y ago
  That reply essentially sounds like "We realize you are in a position of power over us and so we should have been more careful; we thereby explicitly note the power imbalance and pledge to respect you--specifically, just you--a bit more because of it (though let's not get into the details of how)."... which is, I guess, an "apology" of sorts, but it isn't even close to an apology for the thing they actually did wrong. FWIW, the comment you were replying to had a bit of hyperbole in it, and I guess you seem to be expecting it to be an exact quote? I think that same sentiment can be done in a way that is more neutral in tone, which is what seems to be irking you? Which is awkward, I guess, as, frankly, the one you prefer comes off much more to me as "groveling": the issue at hand is procedural and technical and maybe a bit political, but that reply is intensely personal and is directly "bending the knee" to Gorhill while not admitting any actual mistake. But like, maybe, sometimes, an apology inherently requires some humility, and if Mozilla isn't willing to actually state that they did wrong -- not that Gorhill deserves respect, not that this situation went badly, certainly not merely that Gorhill felt bad about it -- then what, pray tell, even is an apology?
  - latexr 2y ago
    > but it isn't even close to an apology for the thing they actually did wrong. I didn’t say the one I linked was perfect, I said it was more plausible. I don’t understand why everyone seems to have such a hard time understanding what that word means. > and I guess you seem to be expecting it to be an exact quote? That is exactly what I asked for. I asked what the email could have said. Words have meanings. Why oh why does that seem to be a novel concept? > But like, maybe, sometimes, an apology inherently requires some humility Yes, yes it does. I agree. > then what, pray tell, even is an apology? For crying out loud. HN, the community that is ridiculed everywhere else for being too literal, was today incapable of understanding a literal question.

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.
    - latexr 2y ago
      > That's what my mooted better-apology email covered. Acknowledge the failings of their processes. But you did it in a way that ridicules Mozilla. It was an unrealistic example of something they would never have sent. For what? There’s no point to that. Surely you can come up with something that is apologetic, honest, real, and that a manager at a company could approve. I was looking for something sensical, not a caricature. > Mozilla should stop thinking (…) That, and most of your post, gets to the heart of it. You’re displeased with Mozilla and want them to look bad. Look, I get it, I don’t like Mozilla’s direction either, I am plenty critical of them. But you can be critical and constructive. Your comments that made them look like absolute bozos are the kind of rhetoric any Mozilla employee would skip over as not being serious. I would like Mozilla to be better, not just burn them to the ground.
saurik 2y ago
That reply essentially sounds like "We realize you are in a position of power over us and so we should have been more careful; we thereby explicitly note the power imbalance and pledge to respect you--specifically, just you--a bit more because of it (though let's not get into the details of how)."... which is, I guess, an "apology" of sorts, but it isn't even close to an apology for the thing they actually did wrong. FWIW, the comment you were replying to had a bit of hyperbole in it, and I guess you seem to be expecting it to be an exact quote? I think that same sentiment can be done in a way that is more neutral in tone, which is what seems to be irking you? Which is awkward, I guess, as, frankly, the one you prefer comes off much more to me as "groveling": the issue at hand is procedural and technical and maybe a bit political, but that reply is intensely personal and is directly "bending the knee" to Gorhill while not admitting any actual mistake. But like, maybe, sometimes, an apology inherently requires some humility, and if Mozilla isn't willing to actually state that they did wrong -- not that Gorhill deserves respect, not that this situation went badly, certainly not merely that Gorhill felt bad about it -- then what, pray tell, even is an apology?
- latexr 2y ago
  > but it isn't even close to an apology for the thing they actually did wrong. I didn’t say the one I linked was perfect, I said it was more plausible. I don’t understand why everyone seems to have such a hard time understanding what that word means. > and I guess you seem to be expecting it to be an exact quote? That is exactly what I asked for. I asked what the email could have said. Words have meanings. Why oh why does that seem to be a novel concept? > But like, maybe, sometimes, an apology inherently requires some humility Yes, yes it does. I agree. > then what, pray tell, even is an apology? For crying out loud. HN, the community that is ridiculed everywhere else for being too literal, was today incapable of understanding a literal question.