5 ms·

There's currently no meaningful distinction between the two domains. mozilla.org is the standard domain for all mozilla sites (developer.mozilla.org, addons.moz

by Osmose 12y ago

There's currently no meaningful distinction between the two domains. mozilla.org is the standard domain for all mozilla sites (developer.mozilla.org, addons.mozilla.org, or, in this case, blog.mozilla.org). I think we maybe use mozilla.com for a handful of internal things. The corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the non-profit, so the .org domain isn't necessarily a misrepresentation, either.

zobzu 12y ago
The argument for being corporate cant go both way tho. What matters is how public perceives this, too. Posting corp stuff on the org domain/site means that then they are fully corporate-like. Which maybe is simply the case. You can't justify that its not the case because Mofo owns Moco.. then say both Moco and Mofo share everything without implying its all just a corp. (or the opposite, but not both).
- Osmose 12y ago
  All I was trying to clear up was that mozilla.org is our standard domain regardless of what's being posted, and thus there was no conscious decision to put "corporate speak" on a .org domain. I dunno exactly why this decision was made, but I'm almost certain having .com and .org both in active use would be really confusing for users (is it addons.mozilla.com? addons.mozilla.org?) and, to a lesser extent, our ops and developers. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the tone of this post is too corporate for a .org and is a bad choice if we want to imply that Mozilla isn't just some for-profit company (which we don't, we like talking about how we're non-profit and open source and mission-driven). Honestly I don't think anyone cares. We'd get the same trouble for posting corporate speak on a .com vs a .org because by the time you care about that, you already know enough about Mozilla to be bothered regardless of the domain.
  - weland 12y ago
    I don't really think the problem is that "it's a .org" domain. But this is posted in what's essentially a place where a lot of people who understand why "positive growth" is not only wrong, but a load of brainwashed crap, spend quite some time :). Phrases like those belong in press releases, not a blog post from an organization intelligent people respect.
    - Osmose 12y ago
      > a lot of people who understand why "positive growth" is not only wrong, but a load of brainwashed crap I mean it's sort've a redundant term, but in context (positive growth of Firefox users, something that has been falling for a while now) it makes perfect sense to me. What did you think he was saying?
      - weland 12y ago
        > I mean it's sort've a redundant term Sort of a meaningless term? How about we replace it with "negative decrease"?

by Osmose 12y ago

zobzu 12y ago

The argument for being corporate cant go both way tho. What matters is how public perceives this, too. Posting corp stuff on the org domain/site means that then they are fully corporate-like. Which maybe is simply the case. You can't justify that its not the case because Mofo owns Moco.. then say both Moco and Mofo share everything without implying its all just a corp. (or the opposite, but not both).

Osmose 12y ago
All I was trying to clear up was that mozilla.org is our standard domain regardless of what's being posted, and thus there was no conscious decision to put "corporate speak" on a .org domain. I dunno exactly why this decision was made, but I'm almost certain having .com and .org both in active use would be really confusing for users (is it addons.mozilla.com? addons.mozilla.org?) and, to a lesser extent, our ops and developers. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the tone of this post is too corporate for a .org and is a bad choice if we want to imply that Mozilla isn't just some for-profit company (which we don't, we like talking about how we're non-profit and open source and mission-driven). Honestly I don't think anyone cares. We'd get the same trouble for posting corporate speak on a .com vs a .org because by the time you care about that, you already know enough about Mozilla to be bothered regardless of the domain.
- weland 12y ago
  I don't really think the problem is that "it's a .org" domain. But this is posted in what's essentially a place where a lot of people who understand why "positive growth" is not only wrong, but a load of brainwashed crap, spend quite some time :). Phrases like those belong in press releases, not a blog post from an organization intelligent people respect.
  - Osmose 12y ago
    > a lot of people who understand why "positive growth" is not only wrong, but a load of brainwashed crap I mean it's sort've a redundant term, but in context (positive growth of Firefox users, something that has been falling for a while now) it makes perfect sense to me. What did you think he was saying?
    - weland 12y ago
      > I mean it's sort've a redundant term Sort of a meaningless term? How about we replace it with "negative decrease"?