The Mozilla Foundation

114 views
Skip to first unread message

Brendan Eich

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 11:59:15 AM7/15/03
to mozilla-...@mozilla.org, mozilla...@mozilla.org, mozilla-...@mozilla.org
We're very pleased to announce the creation of the Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit organization that will serve as the new home for mozilla.org.  The Mozilla Foundation will continue mozilla.org's work of coordinating the development of the Mozilla codebase.  With an independent non-profit as the legal home for Mozilla, we will also promote the distribution and adoption of Mozilla applications and technologies.  In addition, we will raise funds to ensure Mozilla's long-term survival.

We have always wanted an independent organization for Mozilla, and those of us who've been on st...@mozilla.org have conducted Mozilla business according to what we judged was good for Mozilla, not what was good for any one corporate contributor.  It has not always been easy to wear two hats; conflicts have come and gone, but we're better off for our experience running the project as an open source meritocracy.  There was never any other way to go.

Now that the Mozilla Foundation has been launched, we believe the time is ripe to move aggressively toward new distribution channels, new end-user markets, and better incorporation of developer-driven innovations from the whole Mozilla community.

Whenever a project shifts footing or changes focus, there is tension between old and new.  We are sensitive to this tension, and we do not plan any abrupt changes.  Mozilla.org staff will continue to manage the project.  Three members of staff will be on the Board of Directors of the Mozilla Foundation -- Mitchell Baker, Brendan Eich, and Chris Blizzard -- so the governing body of the Mozilla Foundation is congruent with long-term project leadership.  The Board's role is to provide general oversight.  The role of mozilla.org staff, drivers, reviewers, and module owners will continue as before.

We're fortunate to start with significant seed funding, and we expect to spend the bulk of it on salaries for key staff members and technical contributors.   We will continue our focus on technical excellence in our on-going quest for standards compliance, portability, performance, and innovative end-user features.

Mozilla has won numerous awards and acclaim lately.  The Mozilla Foundation is great news for all members of the Mozilla community.  We hope you'll join us in working with mozilla.org to make Mozilla an even greater success in the future.

Mitchell Baker and Brendan Eich

Ron Thigpen

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 12:55:11 PM7/15/03
to
Brendan Eich wrote:

> We're very pleased to announce

> <http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-foundation.html> the creation
> of the Mozilla Foundation

Congratulations to all involved, as Mozilla begins a new life!

--rt

pascal chevrel

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 1:25:06 PM7/15/03
to
Brendan, would it be possible to convert all your images to PNG-8 bits
on the frontpage ? Several are in 32bits when they have less than 256
colours and we could save at least 100 KB. If you want I can optimize
them and send them to you as a zip file.

Pascal

mike hagen

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 2:10:28 PM7/15/03
to

Thats Good Gnews for open source fans!

Benedikt Kantus

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 2:32:15 PM7/15/03
to
That's a bit too complicated for Bugz^H^H^H my little mind.

I am correct when assuming that mozilla.org will continue the
development as before, and the Mozilla Foundation will a) be the legal
home and b) be reponsible for all administrative issues?

Then why are http://www.mozillafoundation.org and http://www.mozilla.org
leading to the same page...

-Bene

--
There are only 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Axel Hecht

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 2:47:22 PM7/15/03
to
Firstly, this is obviously not as charming as it sounds.
I do hope that things get back into some kind of shape in the following
weeks, right now, stuff my bugs depend on looses focus, tracking,
attention. Which is ok, people have higher priorities right now.

On a completely different note, I need a new homepage. One with
developer info instead of download logos and screenshots. That page is
perfectly fine, people have whined long enough that it's so hard to find
a download link. But I knew where they were, I need status updates,
news, and most prominently, tinderbox and bugzilla.

Hrm. There's friction on my butt. And I see a goat on fire.

But generally, good luck with the new foundation. Maybe it's for the
best of the project. Less staff, less distraction thru management. If
we're lucky, it ain't such a bad deal.

Axel

Gervase Markham

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 3:18:36 PM7/15/03
to
Axel Hecht wrote:
> On a completely different note, I need a new homepage. One with
> developer info instead of download logos and screenshots. That page is
> perfectly fine, people have whined long enough that it's so hard to find
> a download link. But I knew where they were, I need status updates,
> news, and most prominently, tinderbox and bugzilla.

There is a definite understanding that the new homepage is not suitable
for everyone. We feel your pain, and want to work out a happy medium. We
haven't yet decided how to balance the different needs of sections of
the Mozilla community - ideas are most definitely welcome.

> But generally, good luck with the new foundation. Maybe it's for the
> best of the project. Less staff, less distraction thru management. If
> we're lucky, it ain't such a bad deal.

Have a think for a bit about what sort of deal it could have been. It
definitely ain't such a bad deal :-)

Gerv

Jay Garcia

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 3:17:09 PM7/15/03
to

On 15.07.03 13:32, Benedikt Kantus wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> Then why are http://www.mozillafoundation.org and http://www.mozilla.org
> leading to the same page...
>
> -Bene
>

Because of the many user-bookmarked mozilla.org entries over the last
several years.

--
Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion
Netscape News Server Volunteer Administrator
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org http://www.UFAQ.org/text_version.html
Post To Group Only - No Email Please

Gervase Markham

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 3:16:59 PM7/15/03
to
Benedikt Kantus wrote:
> I am correct when assuming that mozilla.org will continue the
> development as before, and the Mozilla Foundation will a) be the legal
> home and b) be reponsible for all administrative issues?

The Mozilla Foundation, unlike mozilla.org, is a real corporation in
law. This means it can do things like employ people, and hold
trademarks. The virtual organisation "mozilla.org" will continue - no
big changes there. So yeah, it's roughly like you say :-)


>
> Then why are http://www.mozillafoundation.org and http://www.mozilla.org
> leading to the same page...

Because there's no need for them to point at different places right now :-)

Gerv

Jay Garcia

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 3:18:16 PM7/15/03
to

On 15.07.03 13:47, Axel Hecht wrote:

--- Original Message ---


You mean $2,000,000 from AOL isn't enough to create a heap of
excitement? ;-)

Pascal Chevrel

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 3:55:19 PM7/15/03
to
Le 15/07/2003 21:18, Jay Garcia a écrit :

>
> On 15.07.03 13:47, Axel Hecht wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>
>
>>Firstly, this is obviously not as charming as it sounds.
>>I do hope that things get back into some kind of shape in the following
>>weeks, right now, stuff my bugs depend on looses focus, tracking,
>>attention. Which is ok, people have higher priorities right now.
>>
>>On a completely different note, I need a new homepage. One with
>>developer info instead of download logos and screenshots. That page is
>>perfectly fine, people have whined long enough that it's so hard to find
>>a download link. But I knew where they were, I need status updates,
>>news, and most prominently, tinderbox and bugzilla.
>>
>>Hrm. There's friction on my butt. And I see a goat on fire.
>>
>>But generally, good luck with the new foundation. Maybe it's for the
>>best of the project. Less staff, less distraction thru management. If
>>we're lucky, it ain't such a bad deal.
>>
>>Axel
>>
>
>
> You mean $2,000,000 from AOL isn't enough to create a heap of
> excitement? ;-)
>

Don't forget the 300.000 $ from thenew chairman ! ;-)

Pascal


--
FAQ Mozilla/Netscape 7 en français : http://pascal.chevrel.free.fr/
Drag me, drop me, treat me like an object

Gervase Markham

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 5:25:12 PM7/15/03
to
Jay Garcia wrote:
>
> Because of the many user-bookmarked mozilla.org entries over the last
> several years.

That's not right. The main Mozilla URL is not moving - we have the
Foundation URLs if ever we need a separate website for Foundation stuff,
but development will continue (as far as I know, at any rate) to be done
from www.mozilla.org.

Gerv

Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 8:17:19 PM7/15/03
to

So that's where all the money went after they fired evry netscape
Employee today and ripped of any of their (AOL) buildings the Netscape Logo.

At least that's what's been announced on the Netscape secure Server
Groups today. Its up in the air how long any of the Netscape Servers
will be in existence.

So the 2 million might have t go towards buying all the Netscape Servers.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va |pjo...@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
24112-1809
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://home.kimbanet.com/~pjones/birthday/index.htm>
<http://vpea.exis.net>

Brant Langer Gurganus

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 8:54:41 PM7/15/03
to
Gervase Markham wrote:

> Axel Hecht wrote:
>
>> On a completely different note, I need a new homepage. One with
>> developer info instead of download logos and screenshots. That page
>> is perfectly fine, people have whined long enough that it's so hard
>> to find a download link. But I knew where they were, I need status
>> updates, news, and most prominently, tinderbox and bugzilla.
>
>
> There is a definite understanding that the new homepage is not
> suitable for everyone. We feel your pain, and want to work out a happy
> medium. We haven't yet decided how to balance the different needs of
> sections of the Mozilla community - ideas are most definitely welcome.
>
>> But generally, good luck with the new foundation. Maybe it's for the
>> best of the project. Less staff, less distraction thru management. If
>> we're lucky, it ain't such a bad deal.
>

We have three domain names, why not utilize them. Java does the same.
mozilla.org for developer as it always has been; mozillafoundation.org
for stuff about the organization and how to donate to it, and
mozilla.com for end users.

We also need to, if we keep the current front page's style, update the
site template to match. Otherwise, and end user will think they went to
another site.

--
Brant Langer Gurganus
QA Volunteer

Pascal Chevrel

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 9:26:45 PM7/15/03
to
Le 16/07/2003 02:17, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. a écrit :

> So that's where all the money went after they fired evry netscape
> Employee today and ripped of any of their (AOL) buildings the Netscape Logo.
>
> At least that's what's been announced on the Netscape secure Server
> Groups today. Its up in the air how long any of the Netscape Servers
> will be in existence.
>
> So the 2 million might have t go towards buying all the Netscape Servers.
>

Please, get your facts straight before spreading rumors, AOL will
continue to provide technical ressources to Mozilla, they gave them 2
million dollars and offered them all the intellectual property rights on
the Mozilla name and they clearly stated that they will continue to
maintain the browser, probably with minor releases fixing bugs like Old
Communicator. Don't paint a landscape darker than it actually is.

/////

"AOL will also contribute additional resources through equipment, domain
names and trademarks, and related intellectual property, as well as
providing some transitional assistance for key personnel as they move
into the new organization."

"Other industry leaders also offered their support to the new
organization: Mitch Kapor, the new Chairman of the Mozilla Foundation,
is making a personal contribution of $300,000, and Red Hat and Sun
Microsystems are among the companies planning to continue their
contributions to the Mozilla project."
http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-foundation.html

"The move affects less than 10 percent of Netscape employees, according
to an AOL representative, who added that the company plans to continue
to support current versions of the Netscape browser and the Netscape Web
portal."
http://msnbc-cnet.com.com/2100-1032_3-1026078.html


"It's already considerably more than $2M (plus all of the tinderbox,
build machines and server hardware we're currently using and some that's
new and will be set up soon) and other parties will be contributing to
the Mozilla Foundation besides just AOL."
http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3422&message=46#46

ralph mellor

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 9:48:34 PM7/15/03
to Brendan Eich, mozilla...@mozilla.org
Brendan Eich wrote:

> we will raise funds to ensure Mozilla's long-term survival.

You will try but you may not get as much as you hope for.
It's important to remember that and plan accordingly.


> We're fortunate to start with significant seed funding

It's all relative. I'm pretty sure $2.3m would go a long way, if
it were provided to the apache foundation. I'm pretty sure that,
as an amount to be paid over a 1-2 year period to the mozilla
foundation, it's rather a small amount compared to what the
mozilla project, as a total ecology, was receiving until today.

Please don't plan to blow all that money in just 2 years.

With $2.3m, you have the opportunity to establish a flow of about
a quarter of million dollars a year for over a decade. That would
be sufficient to qualify as a relative guarantee of long term
existence and basic mozilla-as-platform viability.

Or you could take an aggressive shorter term view and budget to
spend around a million a year, based on an assumption/hope that
another million dollars a year will start flowing from somewhere,
and if not, well, mozilla obviously wasn't that interesting, or
won't need much money in year 3.

On the behalf of those considering mozilla-as-platform, I'm asking,
pleading, for the former view.

As I've stated before, my advice to clients considering adopting
a platform is that a relative guarantee of long term viability is
a key. If you choose the first view of funding strategy I gave
above, you would indeed provide a relative guarantee of long term
viability. If you adopt the latter view, you leave the situation
unchanged from the one where AOLTW was funding the whole thing,
and one could not be certain things wouldn't dry up in a year or
two (it's this that lead me to last year advise one client to
continue to sit on the fence in regard to mozilla). (I posted
about this in april last year: http://tinyurl.com/h1nw).

The conservative approach to using the funds you have is, imo,
far, far, better for mozilla-as-a-platform, and probably mozilla
in general.

It would be interesting to hear what leaders of other major open
source platform projects, that emerged and gained resources
organically, rather than the way the mozilla and osa foundations
emerged, would do with the situation you find yourselves in.

--
ralph mellor

B...@see-below-for-address.com

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 10:34:55 PM7/15/03
to

You must be kidding. Netscape, Mozilla, Firebird (whatever) is dead. See
how many sites support Gecko a year from now. As it is, I am increasingly
having trouble using using Schwab With NS 7.01. IE works just fine. The
future.
--
r.s....@att.net

Jay Garcia

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 10:31:50 PM7/15/03
to

--- Original Message ---

Only 10% of the Netscape employees were laid off. Others will remain on
staff to support the browser and the portal, others will be shifted to
other AOL positions, etc.

Of the ones that were laid off, Mozilla Foundation will pick up some of
them to fill various paid postions to further the development of
Firebird and Thunderbird.

I don't know what the fate of the news server is at the moment.

Rob Allen

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 4:56:57 AM7/16/03
to
In message <3F1424D3...@meer.net>, Brendan Eich <bre...@meer.net>
writes

>We're very pleased to announce the creation of the Mozilla Foundation,
>a non-profit organization that will serve as the new home for mozilla.org.

Shouldn't this also be posted to to mozilla.announce?

--
Rob Allen

Gervase Markham

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 9:45:21 AM7/16/03
to
Rob Allen wrote:

> Shouldn't this also be posted to to mozilla.announce?

Er... it is in netscape.public.mozilla.announce .

Gerv

Shankar Unni

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 1:35:34 PM7/16/03
to
Jay sez:

> Only 10% of the Netscape employees were laid off. Others will remain on
> staff to support the browser and the portal, others will be shifted to
> other AOL positions, etc.

By the way, if Netscape-the-browser is orphaned, what's the future of
the IMAP-style access to the Netscape Mail server? Will support for this
be contributed to Mozilla, or is this feature on the way out?

I'd rather know sooner than later, so that I can start transitioning off
my Netscape mail account..

Jay Garcia

unread,
Jul 17, 2003, 12:10:55 AM7/17/03
to
On 16.07.03 12:35, Shankar Unni wrote:

--- Original Message ---


My guess is nothing will change as AOL announced continued support for
the web portal which includes Web-Mail. I can't see them horking IMAP
access. But that's MHO ...

--
Jay Garcia - Always A Netscape Champion
The UFAQ Lives - http://www.UFAQ.org http://www.UFAQ.org/text_version.html

Rob Allen

unread,
Jul 17, 2003, 6:59:34 AM7/17/03
to
In message <bf3k5r$nb...@ripley.netscape.com>, Gervase Markham
<ge...@mozilla.org> writes

So it is... for some reason, my news program didn't download it until
today :(

--
Rob Allen

CG

unread,
Jul 17, 2003, 9:59:38 AM7/17/03
to
Rob Allen wrote:

"Computer Glitch", 'eh? ;-)

--
Chris Garcia
MCSE - Cisco/A+ Certified - Novell MCNE
Netscape/Mozilla FAQS - http://www.UFAQ.org
** Post To Group Only - No Email Please **

Shankar Unni

unread,
Jul 17, 2003, 2:41:30 PM7/17/03
to Jay Garcia
Jay Garcia wrote:

> My guess is nothing will change as AOL announced continued support for
> the web portal which includes Web-Mail. I can't see them horking IMAP
> access. But that's MHO ...

Oh, but the IMAP support is only available in the Netscape-branded
client (using some proprietary interface that I'm guessing passes
through AOL servers..), not the Mozilla releases.

If the Netscape client is being end-of-life'd (to use the current
euphemism here), who or what is going to provide the client side of this
IMAP access?

Jay Garcia

unread,
Jul 17, 2003, 5:05:59 PM7/17/03
to

On 17.07.03 13:41, Shankar Unni wrote:

--- Original Message ---


My Netscape 7.1 client will be working just fine and able to access the
IMAP mail as long as the server is up and running. Why, is your client
going to cease functioning any time now? ;-)

Shankar Unni

unread,
Jul 17, 2003, 5:25:31 PM7/17/03
to
Jay Garcia wrote:

> My Netscape 7.1 client will be working just fine and able to access the
> IMAP mail as long as the server is up and running. Why, is your client
> going to cease functioning any time now? ;-)

No :-), but I'd like to be able to migrate to a more modern (and
hopefully slimmed-down) Mozilla-based browser (e.g. Firebird+TBird) when
they become available, and it would be a shame if I had to stop using
Netscape mail, or keep using NS 7.1 just for Netscape mail.

PS Sorry for the inadvertent cc: to you directly on the last post. My
mouse slipped :-) (yeah, that's the ticket!)

Jay Garcia

unread,
Jul 17, 2003, 5:43:56 PM7/17/03
to

On 17.07.03 16:25, Shankar Unni wrote:

--- Original Message ---


It all depends on the licensing and the attorneys as to who gets to
provide it I guess. My guess, since AOL has already said they will
continue to support the Web Portal, is that nobody but AOL will control
Web Mail and that the "Netscape.net" mail will transgress to something
AOL ... If that is the case then bye bye webmail ... :-(

Rob Allen

unread,
Jul 18, 2003, 5:48:01 AM7/18/03
to
In message <bf69j9$e5...@ripley.netscape.com>, CG <c...@gatewayno.com>
writes

>
>"Computer Glitch", 'eh? ;-)
>

*Grin*

I doubt it - Turnpike is very reliable, so it's almost certainly user
error! I just have no clue what I did...

--
Rob Allen

Henrik Lynggaard

unread,
Jul 20, 2003, 5:37:01 PM7/20/03
to Gervase Markham
Gervase Markham wrote:

> Axel Hecht wrote:
>
>> On a completely different note, I need a new homepage. One with
>> developer info instead of download logos and screenshots. That page is
>> perfectly fine, people have whined long enough that it's so hard to
>> find a download link. But I knew where they were, I need status
>> updates, news, and most prominently, tinderbox and bugzilla.
>
>
> There is a definite understanding that the new homepage is not suitable
> for everyone. We feel your pain, and want to work out a happy medium. We
> haven't yet decided how to balance the different needs of sections of
> the Mozilla community - ideas are most definitely welcome.

And whats the best way to help out with the website and related stuff.
- Who runs that part of the show ?
- Where to discuss ideas ?
- How is the development / checkin model ?

cheers from denmark
Henrik Lynggaard

jephrobodean

unread,
Jul 21, 2003, 4:40:15 PM7/21/03
to
Ok here is my idea of one way to organize the mozilla
community/website ,, it seems to me that their are alot of
TECHIES/developers/programmers and the like working on the mozilla
project/s and on the other hand there are people like me, just users
of the program ,, make that distinction on the website,, developers
area and users area ,, seperate the technical stuff from the average
"dumb" software user like myself. i hope this helps and if not i
apologize, you did ask for ideas :)

j

Gervase Markham

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 4:56:56 AM7/28/03
to
Henrik Lynggaard wrote:

> And whats the best way to help out with the website and related stuff.
> - Who runs that part of the show ?
> - Where to discuss ideas ?
> - How is the development / checkin model ?

Good question - and one that, as yet, I have been unable to get an
answer to. And, as I'm away (http://www.interaction-france.org) for the
next three weeks, I won't be able to press this.

I suggest you email staff@ with this question.

Gerv

Gervase Markham

unread,
Aug 24, 2003, 5:03:49 PM8/24/03
to
Henrik Lynggaard wrote:
> And whats the best way to help out with the website and related stuff.
> - Who runs that part of the show ?
> - Where to discuss ideas ?
> - How is the development / checkin model ?

Apologies for the delay. Asa says:

"Pick some piece that you think can be made better and make it better.
Don't mess with site-wide style/wrapper stuff or the front page, it's
not worth your time. Discuss ideas in npm.documentation, irc,
mozillazine, bugzilla - where everything else is discussed. Checkin
requires cvs access. Don't mess with other peoples' work without asking
firsts."

Is that enough information, or do you need more?

Gerv

Michael Lefevre

unread,
Aug 24, 2003, 10:24:18 PM8/24/03
to
In article <bib8mb$75...@ripley.netscape.com>, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Henrik Lynggaard wrote:
>> And whats the best way to help out with the website and related stuff.
>> - Who runs that part of the show ?
>> - Where to discuss ideas ?
>> - How is the development / checkin model ?
>
> Apologies for the delay. Asa says:
>
> "Pick some piece that you think can be made better and make it better.
> Don't mess with site-wide style/wrapper stuff or the front page, it's
> not worth your time.
[snip]

>
> Is that enough information, or do you need more?

Well it clarifies that help isn't wanted with site wide stuff or the front
page. Unfortunately the site wide stuff is one of the most important
things to fix. Hopefully this means one of the Mozilla folks is going to
be working on that?

Fixing the download sizes at the top of the front page would also be good
(the 1.4 sizes seem to be calculated based on 1MB=1,000,000 bytes, which
makes the downloads look larger than they are, and rather different from
the 1.5a sizes). It's not a huge deal, but it is right up there on the
front page and people do notice. It'd be nice if there was some means of
asking someone to fix it (feel free to take this post as yet another
request...)

--
Michael

Gervase Markham

unread,
Aug 26, 2003, 8:36:27 AM8/26/03
to
Michael Lefevre wrote:

> Well it clarifies that help isn't wanted with site wide stuff or the front
> page. Unfortunately the site wide stuff is one of the most important
> things to fix. Hopefully this means one of the Mozilla folks is going to
> be working on that?

That was exactly my question. No answer yet. You may want to ask it of
Asa independently.

> Fixing the download sizes at the top of the front page would also be good
> (the 1.4 sizes seem to be calculated based on 1MB=1,000,000 bytes, which
> makes the downloads look larger than they are, and rather different from
> the 1.5a sizes). It's not a huge deal, but it is right up there on the
> front page and people do notice. It'd be nice if there was some means of
> asking someone to fix it (feel free to take this post as yet another
> request...)

The best approach is probably to file a bug on b...@bmgoodger.com (or
whatever Ben's Bugzilla ID is), including the updated sizes.

Gerv

Michael Lefevre

unread,
Aug 26, 2003, 8:48:32 AM8/26/03
to
In article <bifjdd$8j...@ripley.netscape.com>, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Michael Lefevre wrote:
>
>> Well it clarifies that help isn't wanted with site wide stuff or the front
>> page. Unfortunately the site wide stuff is one of the most important
>> things to fix. Hopefully this means one of the Mozilla folks is going to
>> be working on that?
>
> That was exactly my question. No answer yet. You may want to ask it of
> Asa independently.

I fear that Asa may not yet have an answer to the question. I can
understand the position - designing websites by committee is a hopeless
exercise, and Mozilla.org wouldn't want to hand responsibility for their
web site over to some external, and taking the time to review someone
else's work would probably take as much time as just doing it (given that
they have the skills internally).

>> Fixing the download sizes at the top of the front page would also be good
>> (the 1.4 sizes seem to be calculated based on 1MB=1,000,000 bytes, which
>> makes the downloads look larger than they are, and rather different from
>> the 1.5a sizes). It's not a huge deal, but it is right up there on the
>> front page and people do notice. It'd be nice if there was some means of
>> asking someone to fix it (feel free to take this post as yet another
>> request...)
>
> The best approach is probably to file a bug on b...@bmgoodger.com (or
> whatever Ben's Bugzilla ID is), including the updated sizes.

Bug 213634 was already filed. I reassigned it to Ben, FWIW.

--
Michael

Colin Blake

unread,
Aug 26, 2003, 11:46:35 AM8/26/03
to
Michael Lefevre wrote:

> Bug 213634 was already filed. I reassigned it to Ben, FWIW.

FWIW is correct. Ben has almost 900 unresolved bugs assigned to him!

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages