Mac OS X 10.3
Boris Zbarsky
meaning that it will now be that much harder for someone (other than the Mozilla
Corporation, say) to create a 10.3-compatible version of Firefox 3 if they
decide they want to.... (for one thing, that patch would now have to be
reverted, in addition to whatever else needs to be done).
I think its unfortunate that this happened without ever really addressing the
questions I raised about the actual state of things on 10.3 when the subject
first came up. Sounds to me like the real decision to drop 10.3 support no
matter what was just made quietly by the module owner, and the various posts to
the newsgroups were just window dressing.
Which is fine, I guess, but next time do try to make it clear in posts if the
decision is made past any rational arguments and save us all time looking for
alternate solutions, if they won't be accepted no matter what.
-Boris
Mike Connor
On 21-Jul-07, at 11:55 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> It looks like the ability to build/run on 10.3 was just removed
> altogether [1],
> meaning that it will now be that much harder for someone (other
> than the Mozilla
> Corporation, say) to create a 10.3-compatible version of Firefox 3
> if they
> decide they want to.... (for one thing, that patch would now have
> to be
> reverted, in addition to whatever else needs to be done).
I think that's in line with what we've done for other platforms where
we've removed support (i.e. OS9 support) and cleaned up obsolete
code. We can always undo the patches if someone comes along to
support 10.3. That said, I don't think its the right investment for
MoCo to make, and I don't think anyone in the Mac development
community really cares enough to step up, giving how many other apps
have already stopped supporting 10.3.
> I think its unfortunate that this happened without ever really
> addressing the
> questions I raised about the actual state of things on 10.3 when
> the subject
> first came up. Sounds to me like the real decision to drop 10.3
> support no
> matter what was just made quietly by the module owner, and the
> various posts to
> the newsgroups were just window dressing.
That's not at all how it went down. I ended up making the final call
based on a number of factors, and this was discussed at length on the
Gecko call (I realize you weren't on the call at the time). I was
supposed to close the loop on 10.3 with a detailed explanation why it
was the right decision to drop support, and that didn't happen yet.
Mea culpa on my part. I'll try to do that in the next few days.
> Which is fine, I guess, but next time do try to make it clear in
> posts if the
> decision is made past any rational arguments and save us all time
> looking for
> alternate solutions, if they won't be accepted no matter what.
Arguments that are rational can still be rejected. Ultimately, the
cost of supporting 10.3 was too high for the return on investment.
That wasn't Josh's call to make, it was mine, and I considered all
arguments before I reached a final conclusion.
-- Mike
Boris Zbarsky
> I think that's in line with what we've done for other platforms where
> we've removed support (i.e. OS9 support) and cleaned up obsolete code.
Generally we did that after the release that dropped support had actually
shipped, though.
> That said, I don't think its the right investment for MoCo to make
No one is arguing it was. There's just more to the Mozilla project than MoCo.
> That's not at all how it went down.
It's what it looked like to me until this mail, for what it's worth. I agree
that the problem was more or less complete lack of information on my part.
> I ended up making the final call based on a number of factors, and this was discussed at length on the
> Gecko call (I realize you weren't on the call at the time).
The Gecko call is basically impossible to make for anyone in the US who's not
employed full-time to work on Mozilla (and in the summer for students and
academics). It's in the middle of the workday in the middle of the week.
There are also no reasonable minutes for the calls; all that's really posted
most of the time is the agenda (and that's available before the call).
I understand why it's scheduled as it is, and why there are no minutes (starting
with the fact that people are so quiet and mumble so much that taking minutes
would be impossible), but we need to accept that it's a terrible way to either
disseminate or solicit information and stop using it for those purposes. Those
are why we have newsgroups.
-Boris
Nelson B
> Mike Connor wrote:
>> I ended up making the final call based on a number of factors, and this
>> was discussed at length on the Gecko call (I realize you weren't on the
>> call at the time).
>
> The Gecko call is basically impossible to make for anyone in the US who's
> not employed full-time to work on Mozilla (and in the summer for students
> and academics). It's in the middle of the workday in the middle of the
> week.
>
> There are also no reasonable minutes for the calls; all that's really
> posted most of the time is the agenda (and that's available before the
> call).
>
> I understand why it's scheduled as it is, and why there are no minutes
> (starting with the fact that people are so quiet and mumble so much that
> taking minutes would be impossible), but we need to accept that it's a
> terrible way to either disseminate or solicit information and stop using
> it for those purposes. Those are why we have newsgroups.
Hear! Hear!
--
Nelson B
Mike Beltzner
> Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> The Gecko call is basically impossible to make for anyone in the
>> US who's
>> not employed full-time to work on Mozilla (and in the summer for
>> students
>> and academics). It's in the middle of the workday in the middle
>> of the
>> week.
>>
>> There are also no reasonable minutes for the calls; all that's really
>> posted most of the time is the agenda (and that's available before
>> the
>> call).
>>
>> I understand why it's scheduled as it is, and why there are no
>> minutes
>> (starting with the fact that people are so quiet and mumble so
>> much that
>> taking minutes would be impossible), but we need to accept that
>> it's a
>> terrible way to either disseminate or solicit information and stop
>> using
>> it for those purposes. Those are why we have newsgroups.
>
> Hear! Hear!
I agree with your complaint, but not your proposed solution. The
solution is to have minutes and updates contributed appropriately to
the wiki, which can then stand as a document of record of the issues,
decisions and action items taken during the meeting, and can be
viewed by all those who are contributing on the project at any time.
Now, fantasai tried posting near-transcript notes of these meetings
for a while, but she ran into two problems: first, they were pretty
cumbersome to read through, and second, there were problems hearing
people on the line.
People with responsibility towards portions of the Gecko codebase
should be contributing their status updates to that wiki page before
the meeting, and then the meeting moderator should be adding notes,
outcomes and action items to that structure during the meeting. Once
the meeting is closed, there will be a pretty decent record, which
can be used by people unable to attend, or even those who are having
trouble hearing (or speaking!) on the phone.
(I should also note that in this particular case, mconnor failed to
disseminate what was a larger change caused by these meetings, and
he's already accepted the blame for that.)
cheers,
mike
Boris Zbarsky
> I agree with your complaint, but not your proposed solution.
Then you apparently don't agree with my complaint...
> The solution is to have minutes and updates contributed appropriately to the
> wiki,
By when? Or should people just reload the wiki page every so often to see what
happened at the last meeting?
I agree that we should do this, by the way. I just think that doing this is not
sufficient if the goal is actually do disseminate information or gather input.
People have been pretty good in the past about posting to the newsgroups when
they needed to do that (schrep's post about scheduling is a good example), and I
think we should encourage that. We don't need newsgroup posts for a lot of the
more detailed things and technical discussion that often happen at the meetings,
of course; the wiki is a perfect place for those as you point out.
-Boris
Mike Beltzner
> Mike Beltzner wrote:
>> I agree with your complaint, but not your proposed solution.
>
> Then you apparently don't agree with my complaint...
Read on, as I think we agree entirely!
>> The solution is to have minutes and updates contributed
>> appropriately to the
>> wiki,
>
> By when? Or should people just reload the wiki page every so often
> to see what
> happened at the last meeting?
Before the meeting for status updates.
After the meeting for meeting minutes.
Once the meeting is over, and the minutes are closed, you've got a
record of the meeting.
> I agree that we should do this, by the way. I just think that
> doing this is not
> sufficient if the goal is actually do disseminate information or
> gather input.
> People have been pretty good in the past about posting to the
> newsgroups when
> they needed to do that (schrep's post about scheduling is a good
> example), and I
> think we should encourage that. We don't need newsgroup posts for
> a lot of the
> more detailed things and technical discussion that often happen at
> the meetings,
> of course; the wiki is a perfect place for those as you point out.
Yeah, I think we agree here. But those announcements should be based
on actions issued in the meetings (as, in this case, one was issued
on mconnor), and people in those meetings should be careful to keep
an eye out for things which require wider dissemination.
Hugz tiem!
cheers,
mike
Mike Schroepfer
You both are right:
1) We need to make those meetings more informative for people who can't
make the time
2) Even with #1 we've should endeavor to make sure to post big
discussions to the newsgroups to give people a chance to paricipate.
Best,
Schrep
Mike Schroepfer
You both are right:
1) We need to make those meetings more informative for people who can't
make the time
2) Even with #1 we've should endeavor to make sure to post big
discussions to the newsgroups to give people a chance to paricipate.
Best,
Schrep
Mike Schroepfer
You both are right:
1) We need to make those meetings more informative for people who can't
make the time
2) Even with #1 we've should endeavor to make sure to post big
discussions to the newsgroups to give people a chance to paricipate.
Best,
Schrep
Dan Mosedale
> Mike Beltzner wrote:
>> I agree with your complaint, but not your proposed solution.
>
> Then you apparently don't agree with my complaint...
>
>> The solution is to have minutes and updates contributed appropriately
>> to the wiki,
>
> By when? Or should people just reload the wiki page every so often to
> see what happened at the last meeting?
When I was doing calendar stuff, we had pretty good luck having the
note-taker update the wiki shortly after the meeting and post a note to
the newsgroup announcing that.
Dan
fantasai
>
> Now, fantasai tried posting near-transcript notes of these meetings for
> a while, but she ran into two problems: first, they were pretty
> cumbersome to read through, and second, there were problems hearing
> people on the line.
Fwiw, I stopped because Beltzner told me that anything important would be
minuted by people at MoCo offices and whatever I was recording at the time
wasn't useful, i.e. I was wasting my time. Call quality is a problem, but
it varies. The last time I was on the call I could hear almost everyone
clearly, although that wasn't true for some of the other people who called
in.
~fantasai
Mike Beltzner
> Mike Beltzner wrote:
>> Now, fantasai tried posting near-transcript notes of these
>> meetings for a while, but she ran into two problems: first, they
>> were pretty cumbersome to read through, and second, there were
>> problems hearing people on the line.
>
> Fwiw, I stopped because Beltzner told me that anything important
> would be
> minuted by people at MoCo offices and whatever I was recording at
> the time
Well, I told you to stop minuting in #granparadiso, because it
limited the ability for others to use that as a backchannel during
the meeting itself. But I don't think transcribing is the same thing
as minuting, either. If you'd like to be the person who takes meeting
minutes within the wiki page during Gecko 1.9 meetings, I'm quite
sure a great many would be appreciative.
The goal of good minutes should be (IMO) the recording of:
- new / updated information (including answers to questions)
relevant to the project
- unanswered questions which came up or requests for help/attention
on a specific bug
- decisions that were made during the meeting
- actions that were assigned during the meeting
> it varies. The last time I was on the call I could hear almost
> everyone
> clearly, although that wasn't true for some of the other people who
> called
> in.
People on the phone should be a little bolder if they can't hear
things on the call. Similarily, people in conference rooms should
respect the fact that crosstalk generates meaningless noise for those
listening at home, and enunciation towards the speakerphone mic makes
everyone's lives easier :)
cheers,
mike
fantasai
> On 26-Jul-07, at 2:13 AM, fantasai wrote:
>
>> Mike Beltzner wrote:
>>> Now, fantasai tried posting near-transcript notes of these meetings
>>> for a while, but she ran into two problems: first, they were pretty
>>> cumbersome to read through, and second, there were problems hearing
>>> people on the line.
>>
>> Fwiw, I stopped because Beltzner told me that anything important would be
>> minuted by people at MoCo offices and whatever I was recording at the
>
> Well, I told you to stop minuting in #granparadiso, because it limited
> the ability for others to use that as a backchannel during the meeting
> itself.
That wasn't the explanation you gave. The reason I can't transcribe
effectively outside the channel is that I don't recognize any voices
except David Baron's (and that's only because I've had years of
practice on CSS telecons). I rely on other people in the channel
telling me who's talking. Taking notes in the channel also allows
other people to correct and add information to the notes I take.
The result is something like
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/264101900a0667f2
which is everything I was able to record, incorporating corrections
offered in the channel, and including any parallel IRC discussion.
That's the best I can do.
> But I don't think transcribing is the same thing as minuting,
> either. If you'd like to be the person who takes meeting minutes within
> the wiki page during Gecko 1.9 meetings, I'm quite sure a great many
> would be appreciative.
>
> The goal of good minutes should be (IMO) the recording of:
>
> - new / updated information (including answers to questions) relevant
> to the project
> - unanswered questions which came up or requests for help/attention on
> a specific bug
> - decisions that were made during the meeting
> - actions that were assigned during the meeting
The reason I can't record only important information is because I can't
tell what's important and what's not (and in some cases, because I can't
record information I didn't hear or because I can't type fast enough to
keep up with the person who's talking). I don't really understand a lot
of the conversation that happens in the Gecko 1.9 meetings, so I can't
summarize it for the wiki. Sorry.
> People on the phone should be a little bolder if they can't hear things
> on the call. Similarily, people in conference rooms should respect the
> fact that crosstalk generates meaningless noise for those listening at
> home, and enunciation towards the speakerphone mic makes everyone's
> lives easier :)
+1 on both those suggestions.
~fantasai