Escalating review of [Bug 1342060] wasm: enable by default

[Douglas Crosher]

Hi,

I would like to bring the following review decision to the attention of
the community and to ask how such matters can be escalated:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1342060

It is not just the decision that I dispute, I am not happy with the
process leading to this decision, and development has been ongoing for
around two years now and I first started contributing to the general
area of the work (asm.js at that time year before that).

I dispute that Mozilla Corp can demonstrate the merit of the decision. I
have raised the problems with the CEO Chris on two occasions, and
recently with the module owner without response. I believe there is
merit in the objections, and that I can demonstrate better performance
and a better plan. Where does that leave the Mozilla community and
governance based on merit? Do I just give up and not bother?

My impression of working on this project is that Mozilla Corp dictated
the decisions, and one reason given was that the critical issue was
getting agreement between the web browsers but this would seem to assume
that the Firefox community has no representation for the product.

I was not consulted before the creation of the WebAssembly CG, the group
many never have been given a choice on how the Chairs were appointed,
and in the end I am just ignored.

I could demonstrate better performance at the start of the process and
better performance now, and can articulate a development plan.

Regards
Douglas Crosher

[Benjamin Kerensa]

There is no escalation if the module owner and decision makers in the bug
have made a decision.

It appears you've exhausted your options.

On Feb 23, 2017 1:23 PM, "Douglas Crosher via governance" <

> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>

[Douglas Crosher]

Hi Benjamin,

Last time I looked I believe Brendan still had the final say, so I find
that hard to believe. I would like to hear that from the Mozilla Directors?

I would like to see some accommodation for the performance use cases,
and it does not seem a big thing to ask and something that would benefit
the web. This might require some new split in responsibilities so that
everyone can get along, and some more objective agreed metrics for 'merit'.

Regards
Douglas Crosher

On 02/24/2017 08:41 AM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> There is no escalation if the module owner and decision makers in the
> bug have made a decision.
>
> It appears you've exhausted your options.
>
> On Feb 23, 2017 1:23 PM, "Douglas Crosher via governance"

> gover...@lists.mozilla.org <mailto:gover...@lists.mozilla.org>
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
> <https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>
>

[Benjamin Kerensa]

That's not how things work and no Brendan hasnt been involved in the
project for years.

Mozilla's Board of Directors don't get involved in bugs and I can tell you
that your not going to get any escalation by emailing here.

Module owner has the final say and you've indicated you already went that
route so you exhausted all your options.

[Douglas Crosher]

Hi Benjamin,

With all due respect I believe Brendan was still listed as having the
final say on technical disputes, and there are likely other paths too. I
see nothing to indicate that you have the authority to close down this
discussion. If no one in Mozilla wishes to engage then that is their
choice, I just won't bother here any more.

Regards
Douglas Crosher

On 02/24/2017 09:33 AM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> That's not how things work and no Brendan hasnt been involved in the
> project for years.
>
> Mozilla's Board of Directors don't get involved in bugs and I can tell
> you that your not going to get any escalation by emailing here.
>
> Module owner has the final say and you've indicated you already went
> that route so you exhausted all your options.
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 23, 2017 2:30 PM, "Douglas Crosher" <dtc...@scieneer.com

> <mailto:dtc...@scieneer.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Benjamin,
>
> Last time I looked I believe Brendan still had the final say, so I find
> that hard to believe. I would like to hear that from the Mozilla
> Directors?
>
> I would like to see some accommodation for the performance use cases,
> and it does not seem a big thing to ask and something that would benefit
> the web. This might require some new split in responsibilities so that
> everyone can get along, and some more objective agreed metrics for
> 'merit'.
>
> Regards
> Douglas Crosher
>
> On 02/24/2017 08:41 AM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> > There is no escalation if the module owner and decision makers in the
> > bug have made a decision.
> >
> > It appears you've exhausted your options.
> >
> > On Feb 23, 2017 1:23 PM, "Douglas Crosher via governance"
> > <gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> <mailto:gover...@lists.mozilla.org>

> <mailto:gover...@lists.mozilla.org

> <mailto:gover...@lists.mozilla.org

> <mailto:gover...@lists.mozilla.org>>
> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
> <https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>

> > <https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
> <https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>>
> >
>
>

[Benjamin Kerensa]

That module wiki is outdated Brendan is not involved in the project. I'm
not shutting down this discussion I'm just letting you know you have
exhausted your options.

I've been around long enough to see many emails like yours and see them go
nowhere.

If you haven't got a positive response from the module owner or Chris I
don't think anyone is going to intervene on your behalf.

[Douglas Crosher]

Hi Benjamin,

Thank you for the clarification, perhaps I was mislead by the 'outdated'
wiki, and on how this 'community' works or doesn't. If I have done all I
can here then so be it.

Regards
Douglas Crosher

On 02/24/2017 09:49 AM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> That module wiki is outdated Brendan is not involved in the project. I'm
> not shutting down this discussion I'm just letting you know you have
> exhausted your options.
>
> I've been around long enough to see many emails like yours and see them
> go nowhere.
>
> If you haven't got a positive response from the module owner or Chris I
> don't think anyone is going to intervene on your behalf.
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 23, 2017 2:42 PM, "Douglas Crosher" <dtc...@scieneer.com

> <mailto:dtc...@scieneer.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Benjamin,
>
> With all due respect I believe Brendan was still listed as having the
> final say on technical disputes, and there are likely other paths too. I
> see nothing to indicate that you have the authority to close down this
> discussion. If no one in Mozilla wishes to engage then that is their
> choice, I just won't bother here any more.
>
> Regards
> Douglas Crosher
>
> On 02/24/2017 09:33 AM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> > That's not how things work and no Brendan hasnt been involved in the
> > project for years.
> >
> > Mozilla's Board of Directors don't get involved in bugs and I can tell
> > you that your not going to get any escalation by emailing here.
> >
> > Module owner has the final say and you've indicated you already went
> > that route so you exhausted all your options.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 23, 2017 2:30 PM, "Douglas Crosher" <dtc...@scieneer.com
> <mailto:dtc...@scieneer.com>

[Douglas Crosher]

Hi Benjamin,

Could I also ask if this wiki page is also out outdated:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/

"Mozilla is an open source project governed as a meritocracy. Our
community is structured as a virtual organization where authority is
distributed to both volunteer and employed community members as they
show their abilities through contributions to the project."

If this is still the principle then it should be possible for members of
the community to challenge Mozilla Corp on the basis of 'meritocracy',
and I believe I can demonstrate better performance than Mozilla Corp on
a component directed at performance and have been able to do so for two
years.

If this is still the principle then perhaps Mozilla Corp should not have
been shutting out members of the community and working with the
assumption that only they represent Firefox in standards development?

What happens when Mozilla Corp can not claim module ownership and peer
status under the principle of meritocracy? Are these the principles of
Mozilla or Mozilla Corp?

Perhaps the wiki is outdated and if so then can it be updated so that
the community knows where it stands.

Regards
Douglas Crosher

> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>

[Douglas Crosher]

Hi,

The community might like to note that Mozilla Corp has flagged my
technical comments in
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1342060 as "advocacy" and
"off-topic".

I respectfully dispute both of those characterisations of my comments,
and I fully believe that independent examination would find my comments
very informative technical responses and very much on topic.

Mozilla Corp has also ignored my escalation of the review and landed the
patches, and even closed the issue as resolved.

Keep in mind I can demonstrate better performance than Mozilla Corp and
for the past two years, and for the past two years I have been trying
very hard to get Mozilla Corp on track to better performance, and have
patches still pending that have not advanced in the past two years. I am
not just some smart-arse here saying I can do better, I have been
showing and explaining how to do better and was submitting patches until
they stopped being accepted.

How much merit does Mozilla Corp have masking sound technical input by
characterising it as "advocacy" and "off-topic"? If they disputed the
technical merits of my input then I think we know they would have, and
they have had two years to do so.

I would note the such actions by Mozilla Corp have characterised the
past two years of work on the WebAssembly component, and it does not
seem consistent with the espoused principle of this community. I don't
think this is a good working environment, and it seems little wonder
that the design is in the state it is and not ready for launch.

Is there no-one within Mozilla who has any shame for the approach taken
by Mozilla Corp in the development of this module? Is there no-one with
some competence in this module who can see and understand the technical
problems with the wasm version being deployed?

By aligning with Google and Microsoft and Apple on WebAssembly, and
given their combined market share, Mozilla has little control now, you
have dug yourself into a hole. You can't dig out of that hole without a
framework that does not exist, so it would require more agreement, and I
think Mozilla should be using what little leverage remains to get
concessions for support for that way out.

Wish I could say good job Mozilla Corp.

Regards
Douglas Crosher

[Douglas Crosher]

Hi,

The community might like to know that Mozilla has claimed authority to
publish a WebAssembly MVP and appears to have done so, and the claim is
signed by a Mozilla module peer.

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webassembly/2017Feb/0002.html

I claim Mozilla had absolutely no authority to make that declaration as
the Chairs of the group were not appointed by a method chosen of the CG
as a whole and they had been asked to return the Chair and for elections
to be held and the W3C had investigated and appear to support that
position - that it was a matter for the group *as a whole* to choose and
thus not for Mozilla to dictate. Mozilla did not even seek consensus
from the CG in claiming consensus.

I was active in this area before the CG was created and was not
consulted before it's creation, and have not once been invited to the
backroom meetings. No minutes of CG business meetings or technical
meetings were posted to the CG.

I agree that more implementation experience is needed, the design is not
complete, but dispute the conclusion that it is ready to deploy. The web
community may well now invest a lot of resources working with a design
that is not complete and that will need significant change. It is not
simply a matter of adding 'future features' as Mozilla describe, rather
the design may need fundamental changes, something you may discover with
more 'implementation experience'. I can trivially demonstrate some of
these necessary changes, and many of the issues I file were closed
unresolved not flagged for future work.

I informed the Mozilla CEO that urgent action was necessary and made a
time limited offered to the module owner to peer the WebAssembly
component without response. The module owner went on the approve the
deployment of wasm 1.0. I attempted to escalate the review here
following published policies and absolutely no one has offered any
defence to my appeals here and yet Mozilla has allowed this to proceed.

Regards
Douglas Crosher

[Mike Hoye]

On 2017-02-28 6:35 PM, Douglas Crosher via governance wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The community might like to know that Mozilla has claimed authority to
> publish a WebAssembly MVP and appears to have done so, and the claim is
> signed by a Mozilla module peer.
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webassembly/2017Feb/0002.html

That post is _co-signed_ by engineers from Mozilla, Google, Apple and
Microsoft, and makes the specific claim that there is consensus among
browser implementers from Mozilla, Google, Apple and Microsoft that the
design of the MVP is complete.

This is a statement of fact, not a policy decision imposed by fiat. You
say "they have been asked" to surrender the Chair and hold elections,
but you should specify that _you_ were the person doing the asking, per
here:

https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/issues/934

... and I note that the Administrator for W3C Community Groups did not
"appear to support" your position, but bluntly refuted it. While you may
disagree with the outcome of this process, these flagrant
mischaracterizations of public discussions will not convince anyone of
your position or change that outcome in the slightest.

You're welcome to email me directly if you'd like to discuss this
further, but I'm confident Governance is not the right place to continue
this.

Thank you,

- mhoye

--
Mike Hoye
Engineering Community Manager.

[Douglas Crosher]

Hi Mike,

On 03/01/2017 12:32 PM, Mike Hoye via governance wrote:
>
>
> On 2017-02-28 6:35 PM, Douglas Crosher via governance wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The community might like to know that Mozilla has claimed authority to
>> publish a WebAssembly MVP and appears to have done so, and the claim is
>> signed by a Mozilla module peer.
>>
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webassembly/2017Feb/0002.html
>
> That post is _co-signed_ by engineers from Mozilla, Google, Apple and
> Microsoft, and makes the specific claim that there is consensus among
> browser implementers from Mozilla, Google, Apple and Microsoft that the
> design of the MVP is complete.

Yes, a qualified opening sentence, but the group as a whole did not
decide this, and Mozilla did not even put out a call for consensus. How
do you think the group feels having a subgroup dominate the chairs and
deploy without their agreement.

But then it makes much broader claims:

"This marks the end of the Browser Preview and signals that browsers
can begin shipping WebAssembly on-by-default. From this point forward,
future features will be designed to ensure backwards compatibility."

"The next steps will be to form a W3C Working Group, ..."

The group as a whole did not decide to release wasm 1.0, but Mozilla and
co have done that in effect by deploying wasm 1.0.

>
> This is a statement of fact, not a policy decision imposed by fiat. You
> say "they have been asked" to surrender the Chair and hold elections,
> but you should specify that _you_ were the person doing the asking, per
> here:
>
> https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/issues/934
>
> ... and I note that the Administrator for W3C Community Groups did not
> "appear to support" your position, but bluntly refuted it. While you may
> disagree with the outcome of this process, these flagrant
> mischaracterizations of public discussions will not convince anyone of
> your position or change that outcome in the slightest.

Sorry I believe you are mistaken, read more of that thread. The W3C
policy as repeated in the link you supplied is: "The participants of the
Group choose their Chair(s).” Mozilla did not allow "the Group" to
choose their Chair(s), they took the chair and would not give it up. To
this day we still have no explanation of how the chairs were appointed,
and there were no notices of such business posted to the CG. There is
also the matter that I was working in this area before the group was
created, the grab for the chairs effectively excluded some views.

I found it a was a toxic working environment. I am not going to go into
it all, but I think Chris might agree that professionals might not want
to engage in such a forum, so perhaps some people just did not bother or
were deterred. Do you think it is doing my professional standing any
good for my efforts?

> You're welcome to email me directly if you'd like to discuss this
> further, but I'm confident Governance is not the right place to continue
> this.

I would rather focus on the technical matters. If someone wants to go
through the technical problems then get in touch, but I feel I have done
all I can to raise the other issues so you fix those problems if you
wish and let history be the judge.

Regards
Douglas Crosher