Mozilla Manifesto and Pocket
353 views
Skip to first unread message
Tom Schuster
May 14, 2015, 12:58:45 PM5/14/15
to Firefox Dev
I am quite surprised to learn that Mozilla internally decided that replacing the open source implementation of the reader list with Pocket, a closed-source proprietary service, is a reasonable decision. The Mozilla Foundation pledge includes "build and enable open-source technologies", which seems to be the absolute opposite to what just happened.
Furthermore all the feedback to this feature has been unsurprisingly negative. And it seems unreasonable to me to uplift such a feature to Beta.
Jared Wein
May 14, 2015, 1:02:28 PM5/14/15
to Tom Schuster, Firefox Dev
Hey Tom,
Reading list was replaced by Pocket, but the two features aren't in parity. Reading list allowed syncing between devices, whereas Pocket allows syncing as well as offline caching, among other things._______________________________________________
firefox-dev mailing list
firef...@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/firefox-dev
Tom Schuster
May 14, 2015, 2:17:55 PM5/14/15
to Jared Wein, Firefox Dev
I don't thinkt this is a good enough reason.
Nicholas Alexander
May 14, 2015, 4:53:46 PM5/14/15
to Tom Schuster, Firefox Dev
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Tom Schuster <t...@schuster.me> wrote:
I am quite surprised to learn that Mozilla internally decided that replacing the open source implementation of the reader list with Pocket, a closed-source proprietary service, is a reasonable decision. The Mozilla Foundation pledge includes "build and enable open-source technologies", which seems to be the absolute opposite to what just happened.
I think the details of the Pocket decision are obscuring a larger point: the issue is not whether /replacing/ an open source implementation is reasonable, it is whether Mozilla should be building, maintaining, and running a reading list service at all. If Mozilla should be, then I expect we'll do it in a manner consistent with Mozilla's stated values. The Firefox leadership decided that a reading list service is not a good investment for Mozilla (right now).
But there are some things that Mozilla is not in position to build (even if we wanted to): for example, we built the Social API to play in the social space. Would you argue that we shouldn't do such things but instead only either build our own open-source social network or enable some other open-source backed social network? I argue the former is foolish (we're not Facebook!) and the latter is laughable -- which one would Mozilla back? I will grant that the Social API is open in a way that the Pocket integration is not (has not been to date), which I regret.
But there are some things that Mozilla is not in position to build (even if we wanted to): for example, we built the Social API to play in the social space. Would you argue that we shouldn't do such things but instead only either build our own open-source social network or enable some other open-source backed social network? I argue the former is foolish (we're not Facebook!) and the latter is laughable -- which one would Mozilla back? I will grant that the Social API is open in a way that the Pocket integration is not (has not been to date), which I regret.
Best,
Nick
Tom Schuster
May 16, 2015, 5:49:35 AM5/16/15
to Nicholas Alexander, Firefox Dev
"I argue the former is foolish (we're not Facebook!) and the latter is laughable -- which one would Mozilla back?" Well it's foolish, but implementing an "enhanced" reading list is not. The bigger issue is, should Mozilla integrate closed-source services just because they provide some value that we can't provide, at least not at the moment, without X amount of engineering work? From my point of view the answer to this should usually be no, and not yes, without even a larger discussion like we had about DRM ...
Gavin Sharp
May 16, 2015, 4:57:50 PM5/16/15
to Tom Schuster, Nicholas Alexander, Firefox Dev
The core question that you're getting at is really "does it ever make
sense to partner", and to hear you say "no" because "we just need to
do a bit of engineering work" makes me think you are not appreciating
the opportunity costs of doing that work - everything we choose to do
means that there are other things we can't do, or can only do poorly.
(That Pocket is "closed source" is a red herring - most services that
most people use online are also "closed source", and while it might be
nice for that to change, there are plenty of reasons why it won't
easily, and I don't think it should be at the top of our list of
concerns, particularly in the context of enabling experiences that
people love. We cannot refuse to integrate with closed-source
services, because we'd be refusing to integrate with the majority of
the web, and down that path lies irrelevancy.)
Gavin
sense to partner", and to hear you say "no" because "we just need to
do a bit of engineering work" makes me think you are not appreciating
the opportunity costs of doing that work - everything we choose to do
means that there are other things we can't do, or can only do poorly.
(That Pocket is "closed source" is a red herring - most services that
most people use online are also "closed source", and while it might be
nice for that to change, there are plenty of reasons why it won't
easily, and I don't think it should be at the top of our list of
concerns, particularly in the context of enabling experiences that
people love. We cannot refuse to integrate with closed-source
services, because we'd be refusing to integrate with the majority of
the web, and down that path lies irrelevancy.)
Gavin
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages