5 ms·

It doesn’t look too great to be honest. It’s quite verbose and gets steps out of order. It starts out with loading a font from Google Fonts. https://developer.m

It doesn’t look too great to be honest. It’s quite verbose and gets steps out of order. It starts out with loading a font from Google Fonts. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn_web_development/Getting_started/Your_first_website/What_will_your_website_look_like https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn_web_developme... Where MDN used to excel and for now still does, reference documentation, is also showing cracks, due to the recent changes at Mozilla. A long time contributor gave up. https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/36294 https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/36294

nothrabannosir 2y ago
I have zero outside context on that pr but judging it purely by the actual written text in the comments it seems the mdn maintainer was bring far more mature than the contributor who ended up quitting. They both mention a lot of background in the comments themselves; what information is missing which would make the contributor seem more sympathetic? As matters stand, this doesn’t appear as a loss for mdn.
- cowsandmilk 2y ago
  100% agree. This is their contributions: https://github.com/mdn/content/commits?author=WebReflection+ https://github.com/mdn/content/commits?author=WebReflection+ Not seeing them as a major contributor.
neilv 2y ago
> It starts out with loading a font from Google Fonts. Besides the steps order... My first impression is that it's taking someone who knows nothing, and conditioning them from step 1 to not even think about compromising a privacy-respecting, free and open Internet. Your First Third-Party Tracker. Your First Gratuitous Third-Party Dependency. A couple times they hit on copyright and licensing, however. Which I approve of, but is also a corporate-friendly thing to emphasize. Another one: > To choose an image, go to [Google Images](https://www.google.com/imghp https://www.google.com/imghp) and search for something suitable. If you have to name and link a search engine for the exercise, how about not endorsing a famously privacy-invading option, but instead have the student use a more privacy-respecting one?
- nacs 2y ago
  > To choose an image, go to Google Images Or plug one of the many royalty-free photo sites like Unsplash or Pexels (and comes with the bonus of teaching people to consider copyrights when you publish a site).
  - edoceo 2y ago
    And also those two sites you mentioned have higher quality and less clutter. A significant improvement in tool choice to what MDN suggested. Hopefully we can fix this via contribution.
  - labster 2y ago
    I don’t think either of those websites pay Mozilla millions of dollars. Maybe the more important lesson they’re teaching is that money makes the world go round.
- juliangoldsmith 2y ago
  The search engine they linked to happens to provide a significant portion of Mozilla's revenue.
lolinder 2y ago
Honestly, I think the MDN team is in the right here. The author of the PR provided almost no explanation for the addition and left the template essentially blank. Then the team provided a detailed explanation of a very reasonable policy, to which the PR author responded with what frankly reads like a temper tantrum. Especially after the xz incident, maintainers should be very very wary of contributors who use manipulative techniques to try to get things merged against policy, and contributors who are trying to help in good faith should be patient and understanding when they hit those barriers.
- benatkin 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - squigz 2y ago
    That's not a very accurate summary. I think you're probably referring to [1] which says > because polyfills are really hard to get right and we should treat everything as insecure and wrong by default ... I took a brief look at your code and I don't think it's spec-compliant enough to be advertised as a polyfill/ponyfill because it is prone to global pollution. They then demonstrate that it's not compliant, which the contributor seems to think is not relevant. Mostly, this contributor comes across as hurt that their PR wasn't immediately merged by virtue of their many years in the field. I might be missing something here though which puts the MDN team in the wrong, but... [1] https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/36294#issuecomment-2407670085 https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/36294#issuecomment-24076...
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > both started the argument with the terrible first reply and escalated the argument with this accusation. Why was the first reply terrible? They stated the policy and closed the PR. They did so professionally and calmly, and the author immediately threw a fit. Then the MDN person dug into the project more and found specific flaws and pointed them out as further evidence for why the policy (which they already cited and which should have been enough) exists. > The person from MDN was saying factually incorrect stuff Do you have specific examples? > Most of the issue seems to be a systemic problem at Mozilla though. Frankly, reading through the thread it feels like you started with this as the assumption and had cast the MDN maintainer as the bad guy before the exchange had even started. Mozilla has lots of problems and I'm the first to point them out, but this exchange doesn't demonstrate any of them—it just demonstrates how hard it is in open source to deal with entitled aspiring contributors.
jwilber 2y ago
The link I’m reading (the one you sent) starts with planning, not font loading? The second link seems very irrelevant, but makes Mozilla look good. The long time contributor in that thread is giving a showcase on how not to behave in open-source. Props to Mozilla for not giving into the manipulative bully-play-victim contributor: Comment of his, for reference: “Once again, if this was the reason for rejection I would've been way happier (it's 3LOC extra) to react to that reasoning, but I am fully sure right now even if I bring "secured" (it's a race condition in the real-world) call and apply to the ponyfill you'll find other awkward and antitrust conflicting arguments to nuke my link ... can you confirm? If yes is the answer, once again, me and you have very different meaning around working to push the Web forward (and it's sad you work for Mozilla, I don't), if no is the answer, I'll publish a fix ASAP and you should re-consider closing both PRs around this topic. It's your call.”
SahAssar 2y ago
> A long time contributor gave up. https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/36294 https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/36294 Reading through that issue MDN was almost definitely in the right. Also calling them a long time contributor might be a bit off, from what I can see they did one typofix and added one link: https://github.com/mdn/content/commits?author=WebReflection https://github.com/mdn/content/commits?author=WebReflection
- semiquaver 2y ago
  Wow, and the added link was another polyfill they had written, precisely the behavior that they were (justifiably) being questioned for in the original linked thread.
  - Tomte 2y ago
    „Last thought“, „really last“… proceeds to write seventeen more comments.
    - kwertyoowiyop 2y ago
      …and an article on Medium.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - poooooo 2y ago
        In the Medium article he actually references his only PR-- a typo fix PR-- as a recent MDN contribution and to open source. Some people just have an inflated sense of their contributions.
andrepd 2y ago
I just see a guy ranting for days because his contribution was rejected. Not sure what point that link is supposed to make.
whatever1 2y ago
MDN does just excel at documentation. It is the ONLY place where one can learn modern web development from scratch without a hidden agenda. Everyone else is either pushing their framework or their online courses platform or their own browser ecosystem.
- wyclif 2y ago
  I would say the Odin Project is another high-quality resource without a hidden agenda.
devmor 2y ago
It is really disappointing how much of the previous feeling of open source ethos seems to disappear every time Mozilla updates anything over the last few years. I am not involved enough to know what kind of changes or politics are responsible, but I sure hope it reverses.
- phatfish 2y ago
  As far as i can tell Mozilla community contributors and employees have the patience of saints having to deal with the most toxic and entitled development community on the internet. Mostly driven by attention seekers trying to boost their NPM download stats.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mvdtnz 2y ago
The author of that pr is acting like a spoilt child. I would reject his contributions on principle alone.
- 12345hn6789 2y ago
  His reaction of course, was due to Mozilla spitting in his face of course. Since his repository was not popular enough to warner attention.
  - ecshafer 2y ago
    His PR broke their policy of not linking to peoples own resources, it was a policy breaking pr. Its straightforward.
raincole 2y ago
The behavior of the said "long time contributor" (I didn't bother checking whether they actually contributed) is very questionable.
sigseg1v 2y ago
I'm amazed that adults act like this in a professional setting. As soon as the issue creator asked if the maintainer has made any of their own polyfills, it sounds like it turned into a personal attack. I'd say the issue poster should be banned from contributing starting from that point, and I'm surprised he was allowed to keep posting.

nothrabannosir 2y ago

I have zero outside context on that pr but judging it purely by the actual written text in the comments it seems the mdn maintainer was bring far more mature than the contributor who ended up quitting. They both mention a lot of background in the comments themselves; what information is missing which would make the contributor seem more sympathetic? As matters stand, this doesn’t appear as a loss for mdn.

cowsandmilk 2y ago
100% agree. This is their contributions: https://github.com/mdn/content/commits?author=WebReflection+ https://github.com/mdn/content/commits?author=WebReflection+ Not seeing them as a major contributor.

neilv 2y ago

> It starts out with loading a font from Google Fonts. Besides the steps order... My first impression is that it's taking someone who knows nothing, and conditioning them from step 1 to not even think about compromising a privacy-respecting, free and open Internet. Your First Third-Party Tracker. Your First Gratuitous Third-Party Dependency. A couple times they hit on copyright and licensing, however. Which I approve of, but is also a corporate-friendly thing to emphasize. Another one: > To choose an image, go to [Google Images](https://www.google.com/imghp https://www.google.com/imghp) and search for something suitable. If you have to name and link a search engine for the exercise, how about not endorsing a famously privacy-invading option, but instead have the student use a more privacy-respecting one?

nacs 2y ago
> To choose an image, go to Google Images Or plug one of the many royalty-free photo sites like Unsplash or Pexels (and comes with the bonus of teaching people to consider copyrights when you publish a site).
- edoceo 2y ago
  And also those two sites you mentioned have higher quality and less clutter. A significant improvement in tool choice to what MDN suggested. Hopefully we can fix this via contribution.
- labster 2y ago
  I don’t think either of those websites pay Mozilla millions of dollars. Maybe the more important lesson they’re teaching is that money makes the world go round.
juliangoldsmith 2y ago
The search engine they linked to happens to provide a significant portion of Mozilla's revenue.

lolinder 2y ago

Honestly, I think the MDN team is in the right here. The author of the PR provided almost no explanation for the addition and left the template essentially blank. Then the team provided a detailed explanation of a very reasonable policy, to which the PR author responded with what frankly reads like a temper tantrum. Especially after the xz incident, maintainers should be very very wary of contributors who use manipulative techniques to try to get things merged against policy, and contributors who are trying to help in good faith should be patient and understanding when they hit those barriers.

benatkin 2y ago
[flagged]
- squigz 2y ago
  That's not a very accurate summary. I think you're probably referring to [1] which says > because polyfills are really hard to get right and we should treat everything as insecure and wrong by default ... I took a brief look at your code and I don't think it's spec-compliant enough to be advertised as a polyfill/ponyfill because it is prone to global pollution. They then demonstrate that it's not compliant, which the contributor seems to think is not relevant. Mostly, this contributor comes across as hurt that their PR wasn't immediately merged by virtue of their many years in the field. I might be missing something here though which puts the MDN team in the wrong, but... [1] https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/36294#issuecomment-2407670085 https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/36294#issuecomment-24076...
- lolinder 2y ago
  > both started the argument with the terrible first reply and escalated the argument with this accusation. Why was the first reply terrible? They stated the policy and closed the PR. They did so professionally and calmly, and the author immediately threw a fit. Then the MDN person dug into the project more and found specific flaws and pointed them out as further evidence for why the policy (which they already cited and which should have been enough) exists. > The person from MDN was saying factually incorrect stuff Do you have specific examples? > Most of the issue seems to be a systemic problem at Mozilla though. Frankly, reading through the thread it feels like you started with this as the assumption and had cast the MDN maintainer as the bad guy before the exchange had even started. Mozilla has lots of problems and I'm the first to point them out, but this exchange doesn't demonstrate any of them—it just demonstrates how hard it is in open source to deal with entitled aspiring contributors.

jwilber 2y ago

The link I’m reading (the one you sent) starts with planning, not font loading? The second link seems very irrelevant, but makes Mozilla look good. The long time contributor in that thread is giving a showcase on how not to behave in open-source. Props to Mozilla for not giving into the manipulative bully-play-victim contributor: Comment of his, for reference: “Once again, if this was the reason for rejection I would've been way happier (it's 3LOC extra) to react to that reasoning, but I am fully sure right now even if I bring "secured" (it's a race condition in the real-world) call and apply to the ponyfill you'll find other awkward and antitrust conflicting arguments to nuke my link ... can you confirm? If yes is the answer, once again, me and you have very different meaning around working to push the Web forward (and it's sad you work for Mozilla, I don't), if no is the answer, I'll publish a fix ASAP and you should re-consider closing both PRs around this topic. It's your call.”

SahAssar 2y ago

> A long time contributor gave up. https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/36294 https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/36294 Reading through that issue MDN was almost definitely in the right. Also calling them a long time contributor might be a bit off, from what I can see they did one typofix and added one link: https://github.com/mdn/content/commits?author=WebReflection https://github.com/mdn/content/commits?author=WebReflection

semiquaver 2y ago
Wow, and the added link was another polyfill they had written, precisely the behavior that they were (justifiably) being questioned for in the original linked thread.
- Tomte 2y ago
  „Last thought“, „really last“… proceeds to write seventeen more comments.
  - kwertyoowiyop 2y ago
    …and an article on Medium.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - poooooo 2y ago
      In the Medium article he actually references his only PR-- a typo fix PR-- as a recent MDN contribution and to open source. Some people just have an inflated sense of their contributions.

andrepd 2y ago

I just see a guy ranting for days because his contribution was rejected. Not sure what point that link is supposed to make.

whatever1 2y ago

MDN does just excel at documentation. It is the ONLY place where one can learn modern web development from scratch without a hidden agenda. Everyone else is either pushing their framework or their online courses platform or their own browser ecosystem.

wyclif 2y ago
I would say the Odin Project is another high-quality resource without a hidden agenda.

devmor 2y ago

It is really disappointing how much of the previous feeling of open source ethos seems to disappear every time Mozilla updates anything over the last few years. I am not involved enough to know what kind of changes or politics are responsible, but I sure hope it reverses.

phatfish 2y ago
As far as i can tell Mozilla community contributors and employees have the patience of saints having to deal with the most toxic and entitled development community on the internet. Mostly driven by attention seekers trying to boost their NPM download stats.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mvdtnz 2y ago

The author of that pr is acting like a spoilt child. I would reject his contributions on principle alone.

12345hn6789 2y ago
His reaction of course, was due to Mozilla spitting in his face of course. Since his repository was not popular enough to warner attention.
- ecshafer 2y ago
  His PR broke their policy of not linking to peoples own resources, it was a policy breaking pr. Its straightforward.

raincole 2y ago

The behavior of the said "long time contributor" (I didn't bother checking whether they actually contributed) is very questionable.

sigseg1v 2y ago

I'm amazed that adults act like this in a professional setting. As soon as the issue creator asked if the maintainer has made any of their own polyfills, it sounds like it turned into a personal attack. I'd say the issue poster should be banned from contributing starting from that point, and I'm surprised he was allowed to keep posting.