11–20 of 194 posts
"They did not want to be identified because they are not authorized to speak publicly about the matter." With Mozilla?
The "people familiar" with the matter (who presumably work for or are affiliated with Mozilla in some way) aren't authorized by Mozilla to speak publicly about the board member resignations.
Locked out of iOS. Under heavly competition on Android. Put the metro port on the back burner. Increasingly fighting to stay on feature parity with Chrome on the desktop. FirefoxOS still to make an impact. I love Firefox. I'm just worried for it. With the world going mobile, I wonder if there's space for Firefox. It would be such a shame not to see it around 5 years from now. I wonder if it makes sense for a small or…
A fairly bad one, yes. There would be virtually no benefit to doing this, and a serious detriment to web browser diversity (which would likely be a detriment to the health of the web as a developing ecosystem).
> It would be such a shame not to see it around 5 years from now
They still have plenty of revenue, and the amount still keeps going up every time they renegotiate their search engine contracts. They'd be more in danger of irrelevance, but while they had a slight dip in browser marketshare (depending on who you ask), it seems relatively steady state now (just like their major competitors). Meanwhile no one is wringing their hands over Microsoft's irrelevance in the browser market even though Windows Phone remains a tiny contender.
Your worries seem a little unfounded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "people familiar" with the matter (who presumably work for or are affiliated with Mozilla in some way) aren't authorized by Mozilla to speak publicly about the board member resignations.
I know, why do they need authorization at an organization like Mozilla?
This seems unusual. Isn't the board responsible for appointing the CEO, to begin with? How can it be that half the board resigns after their own CEO appointment? Even if the appointment were simply a majority of the board, that in and of itself raises bizarre questions. Why is a CEO appointed only on a 3-3 (or 4-2) vote? Usually you would want unanimity in important things like this. This certainly opens up a lot of…
I'm going to be simultaneously cynical and optimistic here, but the story so far appears to be based on anonymous hearsay. Eich's appointment could perhaps be a smaller part of a big shakeup at Mozilla, board and all, that isn't predicated entirely on Eich.
Alternatively, and perhaps most realistically, the board members who voted for Eich may not have considered it a problem until they saw the backlash, both internally and externally. Both people and organizations alike can backtrack and develop new ideals based upon the reactions to their actions.
While we're doing hearsay though, I've heard no new CTO is on the cards which strikes me as odd.
Edit: I don't know how legit this is, but I just saw this on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TruthTellerMoz1/status/44967336620801228...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know, why do they need authorization at an organization like Mozilla?
Just because Mozilla has a culture of openness and transparency, it doesn't mean every piece of information about the goings-on of the company is public. I find that unsurprising and entirely normal.
Locked out of iOS. Under heavly competition on Android. Put the metro port on the back burner. Increasingly fighting to stay on feature parity with Chrome on the desktop. FirefoxOS still to make an impact. I love Firefox. I'm just worried for it. With the world going mobile, I wonder if there's space for Firefox. It would be such a shame not to see it around 5 years from now. I wonder if it makes sense for a small or…
> Is it such a horrible idea to fork and contribute to blink? Just thinking out loud A fairly bad one, yes. There would be virtually no benefit to doing this, and a serious detriment to web browser diversity (which would likely be a detriment to the health of the web as a developing ecosystem). > It would be such a shame not to see it around 5 years from now They still have plenty of revenue, and the amount still kee…
Locked out of iOS. Under heavly competition on Android. Put the metro port on the back burner. Increasingly fighting to stay on feature parity with Chrome on the desktop. FirefoxOS still to make an impact. I love Firefox. I'm just worried for it. With the world going mobile, I wonder if there's space for Firefox. It would be such a shame not to see it around 5 years from now. I wonder if it makes sense for a small or…
> Is it such a horrible idea to fork and contribute to blink? Just thinking out loud A fairly bad one, yes. There would be virtually no benefit to doing this, and a serious detriment to web browser diversity (which would likely be a detriment to the health of the web as a developing ecosystem). > It would be such a shame not to see it around 5 years from now They still have plenty of revenue, and the amount still kee…
I don't think they're unfounded. Nearly every developer I know uses chrome, and chrome dev tools. This wasn't always the case. Market share can be a lagging indicator, i think it's a little short sighted to suggest they're okay. They're not!
Forking isn't a sin. Diversity often a result of forking. Take a look at this graphic[1]. There's a good chance the browser you're currently using is a result of a fork.
Mozilla has to really examine what they stand for. The open web doesn't depend on implementation internals. Just specs, tests, and sensible governing body, and a set of willing participants that don't have unreasonable misaligned interests. They can still promote an open. Perhaps even do a better job of it with the extra resources.
[1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Timeline_...
This seems unusual. Isn't the board responsible for appointing the CEO, to begin with? How can it be that half the board resigns after their own CEO appointment? Even if the appointment were simply a majority of the board, that in and of itself raises bizarre questions. Why is a CEO appointed only on a 3-3 (or 4-2) vote? Usually you would want unanimity in important things like this. This certainly opens up a lot of…
the people familiar with the situation said. They did not want to be identified because they are not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. I'm going to be simultaneously cynical and optimistic here, but the story so far appears to be based on anonymous hearsay. Eich's appointment could perhaps be a smaller part of a big shakeup at Mozilla, board and all, that isn't predicated entirely on Eich. Alternatively,…
This seems unusual. Isn't the board responsible for appointing the CEO, to begin with? How can it be that half the board resigns after their own CEO appointment? Even if the appointment were simply a majority of the board, that in and of itself raises bizarre questions. Why is a CEO appointed only on a 3-3 (or 4-2) vote? Usually you would want unanimity in important things like this. This certainly opens up a lot of…
