2005-02-28 - Summary of mozilla.org staff meeting

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Gervase Markham

unread,
Mar 5, 2005, 1:21:13 PM3/5/05
to st...@mozilla.org
2005-02-28 - Summary of mozilla.org staff meeting
-------------------------------------------------

Present: blizzard, bienvenu, hecker, gerv, justdave, mscott, chofmann,
deb, myk, cbeard, rafael, chase, asa, jst.

*Mozilla 1.8b1*

- Shipped :-)
- 1.7.6 this week or next

*Mozilla 1.8 final*

- To be discussed tomorrow whether we do one

*Firefox 1.0.1 feedback*

- Make front page more clear that 1.0.1 _is_ the security update
- mozilla.org/security should also have an announcement

- Going through the security bounty claims; probably 3 or 4 to pay
- Need dveditz, who's away for two days - hope to do it by the weekend

*Firefox 1.1*

- ben, chofmann, scott going to grind out the plan for 1.1 tomorrow
- Try and predict when the work will be done to get a branch date
- Aiming for June 1st, but this may not be realistic

*Thunderbird 1.1*

- Meeting tomorrow
- Confident of being ready by June

*FOSDEM report*

- l10n community is vibrant and active
- Shooting for near 40 localisations for 1.0.1
- Hitting some scaling and management issues
- CVS account creation for localisers - myk or dave to take care of it

*UMO load*

- In good shape; ready for pushing 1.0.1 to RDF file
- That's going to happen today
- We've got the capacity to deal with the "first week" spike

*DevMo*

- Deb started work today
- Putting together a high-level plan for DevMo

*Volunteer Awards*

- In progress; no concrete plan yet

*IDN/punycode domain spoofing*

- Gerv has a lot of email to read!

*Other*

- Boris Zbarsky and Josh Aas hired part-time until they've finished
school
- We didn't hire Kai (confusion caused by last week's notes)

Gerv

Boris 'pi' Piwinger

unread,
Mar 5, 2005, 2:12:23 PM3/5/05
to
Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org> wrote:

>*Mozilla 1.8b1*
>
>- Shipped :-)
>- 1.7.6 this week or next
>
>*Mozilla 1.8 final*
>
>- To be discussed tomorrow whether we do one

What does that mean? Why have a beta if there will not be a
final?

pi

Chris Ilias

unread,
Mar 5, 2005, 2:21:53 PM3/5/05
to
_Boris 'pi' Piwinger_ spoke thusly:

> Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>
>>*Mozilla 1.8 final*
>>
>>- To be discussed tomorrow whether we do one
>
> What does that mean?

It means that 2005-02-28, the mozilla.org staff was unsure about whether
or not to release a 1.8 final release; and they planned to discuss it
the following day (March 1).

> Why have a beta if there will not be a final?

Mainly Gecko testing. I haven't read anything on what the outcome of the
discussion was; so if there's still a possibility of a 1.8 final
release, that's another reason to do a beta.

What /was/ the outcome of that discussion anyway?

--
Chris Ilias - Mozilla Champion
Email - 2004...@ilias.ca
Netscape/Mozilla Links <http://ilias.ca>
Mozilla Help <http://ilias.ca/mozilla/>

asa dotzler

unread,
Mar 5, 2005, 3:18:16 PM3/5/05
to
Boris 'pi' Piwinger wrote:
> Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>>*Mozilla 1.8 final*
>>- To be discussed tomorrow whether we do one
>
> What does that mean?

It means that we're focused on shipping our premier applications, Firefox and Thunderbird,
and any efforts we're spending on Seamonkey right now are devoted to maintaining the 1.7
branch with security and stability updates.

> Why have a beta if there will not be a final?

Seamonkey is a fine testbed for Gecko improvements that will be a part of any application
releases that come from the 1.8 branch.

--Asa

Peter Lairo

unread,
Mar 5, 2005, 3:25:58 PM3/5/05
to
HJ said on 05.03.2005 20:17:
> It means that the Mozilla Foundation don't care about Mozilla users!

No, it probably means that the MF doesn't care *as much* about the
Mozilla *Seamonkey* users as it cares about the Mozilla Aviary users. ;-)

Did I just defend the MoFo? Jikes! :-)

--
Regards,

Peter Lairo

The browser you can trust: www.GetFirefox.com
Reclaim Your Inbox: www.GetThunderbird.com

Make my day/year/millenium: www.lairo.com/donations.html

HJ

unread,
Mar 5, 2005, 2:17:30 PM3/5/05
to

It means that the Mozilla Foundation don't care about Mozilla users!

/HJ

Boris 'pi' Piwinger

unread,
Mar 5, 2005, 4:13:38 PM3/5/05
to
asa dotzler <a...@mozilla.org> wrote:

>>>*Mozilla 1.8 final*
>>>- To be discussed tomorrow whether we do one
>>
>> What does that mean?
>
>It means that we're focused on shipping our premier applications, Firefox and Thunderbird,
>and any efforts we're spending on Seamonkey right now are devoted to maintaining the 1.7
>branch with security and stability updates.

But that is pretty frozen feature-wise.

>> Why have a beta if there will not be a final?
>
>Seamonkey is a fine testbed for Gecko improvements that will be a part of any application
>releases that come from the 1.8 branch.

I still don't get that. We have this 1.8 branch. But if it
keeps at beta, won't that limit the quality of application
releases coming from it?

pi

asa dotzler

unread,
Mar 5, 2005, 5:14:51 PM3/5/05
to
Boris 'pi' Piwinger wrote:
> asa dotzler <a...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>
>
>>>>*Mozilla 1.8 final*
>>>>- To be discussed tomorrow whether we do one
>>>
>>>What does that mean?
>>
>>It means that we're focused on shipping our premier applications, Firefox and Thunderbird,
>>and any efforts we're spending on Seamonkey right now are devoted to maintaining the 1.7
>>branch with security and stability updates.
>
>
> But that is pretty frozen feature-wise.
>

Yes, it is.

>>>Why have a beta if there will not be a final?
>>
>>Seamonkey is a fine testbed for Gecko improvements that will be a part of any application
>>releases that come from the 1.8 branch.
>
>
> I still don't get that. We have this 1.8 branch. But if it
> keeps at beta, won't that limit the quality of application
> releases coming from it?

Not really. Having beta releases helps to improve quality.

--Asa

asa dotzler

unread,
Mar 5, 2005, 5:16:45 PM3/5/05
to HJ
HJ wrote:

> Boris 'pi' Piwinger wrote:
>
>> What does that mean? Why have a beta if there will not be a
>> final?
>
> It means that the Mozilla Foundation don't care about Mozilla users!


And that's why I'm putting pretty much all my time right now into trying to get a 1.7.6
release out -- because I don't care about Mozilla users?

We most certainly do care about Mozilla (Seamonkey) users and that's why we're devoting
quite a bit of time and effort to making high quality stability and security releases for
1.7.x users.

--Asa

Larry Belan

unread,
Mar 5, 2005, 5:15:46 PM3/5/05
to
Boris 'pi' Piwinger wrote:

Boris,

I don't understand the 'attitude' with MoFo, either.

Let's just look at the Seamonkey 'branch' as Asa put it, the testbed for
future Gecko developments that will go into the 'other' apps. (Fx.Tb,
NVu, etc...)

MoFo has no further interest in maintaining Seamonkey, or the "Mozilla
Suite" beyond the 1.7.x releases.

It's been stated in some of the discussions on mozillazine.org, that the
Suite was NEVER a 'user app'...and MoFo is just beginning to stand on
that call. The suite was to be used by commercial folks (Netscape, IBM,
Linspire, etc.) to enhance and support.

The Suite will eventually die, because MoFo has begun to ignore it.
MoFo wants to focus energy in the "Premiere Apps" (gee, wasn't the
'Suite' the ONLY MoFo application to begin with?)

It's my opinion that, Asa's statement above that "Seamonkey will be used
to 'test' Gecko changes" is to AVOID the hassle of testing with Fx
users...what? Is MoFo afraid to put a bug/glitch/security problem into
a "Premier App" for testing? Geesh....Microsoft does it all the time,
and look where they stand as a company.

I'm concerned that MoFo is interested TOO MUCH about PRODUCTS and
MARKETING, rather than technologies. MoFo is NOT Microsoft, but I
believe that they want to be. If that's the case...they need to hand
off the code so they can worry about products and marketing, something
that MoFo still should NOT be involved in.

Of course, the code should stay within MoFo...the current MoFo
'attitude' needs to fork off into a 'marketing firm.'

I fear the worst, because I feel that something's not going in right
direction, and my interest in MoFo and it's projects are fading. That
truly disturbs me.


--

Larry

HJ

unread,
Mar 5, 2005, 4:24:00 PM3/5/05
to
Peter Lairo wrote:
> HJ said on 05.03.2005 20:17:
>
>> Boris 'pi' Piwinger wrote:
>>
>>> Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> *Mozilla 1.8b1*
>>>>
>>>> - Shipped :-)
>>>> - 1.7.6 this week or next
>>>>
>>>> *Mozilla 1.8 final*
>>>>
>>>> - To be discussed tomorrow whether we do one
>>>
>>>
>>> What does that mean? Why have a beta if there will not be a
>>> final?
>>
>>
>> It means that the Mozilla Foundation don't care about Mozilla users!
>
>
> No, it probably means that the MF doesn't care *as much* about the
> Mozilla *Seamonkey* users as it cares about the Mozilla Aviary users. ;-)

Yeah, we all knew that this was going to happen one day, but my only
hope is that this move isn't going to be the next bad decision from
former AOL/Time Warner employees.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Simon Paquet

unread,
Mar 5, 2005, 9:11:07 PM3/5/05
to
And on the seventh day Gervase Markham spoke:

>*Other*
>
>- Boris Zbarsky and Josh Aas hired part-time until they've finished
> school

Great news that you hired Boris. IMO he is one of our greatest hackers if
not the greatest and he often doesn't get nearly enough credit for all
his work.

Simon
--
Default QA Contact Firefox - Menus/Toolbars/Installer
My Mozilla blog: http://www.babylonsounds.com/blog.html
Join us on Bugday: Every Tuesday from 10 AM - 6 PM PST in the
#mozillazine channel on irc.mozilla.org

Rickkins

unread,
Mar 5, 2005, 9:30:47 PM3/5/05
to
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:16:45 -0800, asa dotzler <a...@mozilla.org>
wrote:

>And that's why I'm putting pretty much all my time right now into trying to get a 1.7.6
>release out -- because I don't care about Mozilla users?
>
>We most certainly do care about Mozilla (Seamonkey) users and that's why we're devoting
>quite a bit of time and effort to making high quality stability and security releases for
>1.7.x users.
>
>--Asa


Well, there's little I can add at this point that I haven't already
spewed forth. One can only hope that the millions of folks that
use the suite worldwide aren't foresaken.

Perhaps, perhaps a new direction is called for.
You firefox boys start a seperate 'foundation', "The Firefox
Foundation".
Pass mozilla on to someone who wants to continue the legacy of
Netscape.

Frankly, the suite may best be served by getting it into the hands of
people who actually want it to be the 'main' product...which you guys
by your own admission, don't.

Chris Ilias

unread,
Mar 6, 2005, 2:09:41 AM3/6/05
to
_asa dotzler_ spoke thusly:

> It means that we're focused on shipping our premier applications, Firefox and Thunderbird,
> and any efforts we're spending on Seamonkey right now are devoted to maintaining the 1.7
> branch with security and stability updates.

Asa, I think almost everyone knows where seamonkey stands in terms of
priority, but I think the question of "will there be a 1.8 final
release" needs to be answered in a very direct and simply way:
"yes", "no", or "we haven't decided yet"?

Michael Lefevre

unread,
Mar 6, 2005, 7:13:11 AM3/6/05
to
On 2005-03-06, Chris Ilias <read...@ilias.invalid> wrote:
> _asa dotzler_ spoke thusly:
>> It means that we're focused on shipping our premier applications, Firefox and Thunderbird,
>> and any efforts we're spending on Seamonkey right now are devoted to maintaining the 1.7
>> branch with security and stability updates.
>
> Asa, I think almost everyone knows where seamonkey stands in terms of
> priority, but I think the question of "will there be a 1.8 final
> release" needs to be answered in a very direct and simply way:
> "yes", "no", or "we haven't decided yet"?

This would be less of an issue if the roadmap document wasn't 2 years out
of date (with a "temporary" note promising an update which is 5 months out
of date).

Having said that, the roadmap document was updated (in November, prior to
Asa's original blog comment) to say that 1.7 would be the "final stable
branch". As I said elsewhere in this thread, if 1.7 is to be the final
stable branch, it would make a 1.8 release a bit of an orphan, with no
1.9 or 1.8.1 to move up to in the event of security issues.

--
Michael

Serge GAUTHERIE

unread,
Mar 6, 2005, 9:46:28 AM3/6/05
to
Michael Lefevre wrote:

> As I said elsewhere in this thread, if 1.7 is to be the final
> stable branch, it would make a 1.8 release a bit of an orphan, with no
> 1.9 or 1.8.1 to move up to in the event of security issues.

As I read "stable" as meaning "long lived", being MAS v1.0.x, v1.4.x,
v1.7.x,
I understand easyly that the following "stable" release(s) is FF+TB
v1.0.x, and so on.

Yet, releasing new MAS "end-user(developer/tester, I know !) oriented,
but not intended to be long lived", like v1.8b2, _v1.8f_, v1.9a, v1.9b,
would still be appreciated...

Adam Hauner

unread,
Mar 6, 2005, 10:45:40 AM3/6/05
to
Gervase Markham wrote:

> *Firefox 1.1*
> - ben, chofmann, scott going to grind out the plan for 1.1 tomorrow
> - Try and predict when the work will be done to get a branch date

Will be there new QA team for this release? Or could we hope for any
improvement in comparsion with 1.0.1 release problems and 1.7.5 released
regressions?

> - Aiming for June 1st, but this may not be realistic

Define realistic plan, then term and finish work in time. I personally
won't see again tragicomedy of last year, when date of Firefox final
release was running away nearly as fast as time. MF already started to
push term of Firefox 1.1, actually from March to June. Users are asking
on this term and will be bad to lie them again in good faith, that MF
has already experience with terms.

--
Adam Hauner

Michael Lefevre

unread,
Mar 6, 2005, 11:41:39 AM3/6/05
to

I don't really see how they can do that... if they release a 1.8 final,
1.7 users will move to it. If it's going to be for developers and testers
only, those people could just grab a nightly build from the 1.8 branch.

--
Michael

Boris Zbarsky

unread,
Mar 6, 2005, 12:57:41 PM3/6/05
to
Rickkins wrote:
> Frankly, the suite may best be served by getting it into the hands of
> people who actually want it to be the 'main' product...

Absolutely. Do you have people in mind who have time to do this? If so, I'd
love to know who they are. They are sorely needed.

-Boris

Justin Wood (Callek)

unread,
Mar 6, 2005, 1:07:37 PM3/6/05
to

Without me knowing well what is involved in "pushing out a release" I
cannot comit myself, though Suite is my, "main product" ;-) And if I am
needed to get a 1.8final for others, I would help best I can.

~Justin Wood (Callek)

Simon Paquet

unread,
Mar 6, 2005, 1:21:16 PM3/6/05
to
And on the seventh day Rickkins spoke:

>Frankly, the suite may best be served by getting it into the hands of
>people who actually want it to be the 'main' product...which you guys
>by your own admission, don't.

Why don't you and others, who are not satisfied with the road that the
MoFo has taken, get your act together and *DO* something.

See also http://www.steelgryphon.com/blog/index.php?p=32

I always hear you guys clamoring how bad the MoFo is and so on, but
nobody actually does something. This will have to change if the Suite
should have a future.

Daniel Herrera

unread,
Mar 6, 2005, 1:34:57 PM3/6/05
to
I also thought "stable" as meaning "long lived" like 1.0.x, 1.4.x,
1.7.x, but we still had 1.2.x, 1.3.x, 1.5.x, 1.6.x, official releases.
Message has been deleted

Adam Hauner

unread,
Mar 6, 2005, 2:15:26 PM3/6/05
to
Simon Paquet wrote:

> Why don't you and others, who are not satisfied with the road that the
> MoFo has taken, get your act together and *DO* something.
> See also http://www.steelgryphon.com/blog/index.php?p=32
> I always hear you guys clamoring how bad the MoFo is and so on, but
> nobody actually does something. This will have to change if the Suite
> should have a future.

Simon, any tip for non-developers? Should I sold house, car etc. and pay
some developer? =) I do sometimes bug triage and I'm active in Czech
Mozilla project. I believe, that my involvement is small help to Mozilla
world, but it doesn't help to save Seamonkey, my most used application.

For others, note comment by Bernd bellow Mike's spot.

--
Adam Hauner
Projekt CZilla
http://www.czilla.cz/
http://firefox.czilla.cz/

Boris Zbarsky

unread,
Mar 6, 2005, 3:20:34 PM3/6/05
to
Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
> Without me knowing well what is involved in "pushing out a release"

At least:

1) Tagging the trunk at some point when it's stable (coordinating this with
other trunk Gecko/etc consumers, one hopes).
2) Lots of organized and thorough testing of the branch you created.
3) Filing bugs based on the results of that testing.
4) Getting said bugs fixed on that branch.
5) Writing release notes.
6) Creating builds from the branch.
7) Pushing those builds to the FTP server.
8) Announcing the release.

Asa, please chime in if I missed something through ignorance?

I suspect step #2 is somewhat time-consuming, as are step #4 and step #5.

-Boris

Serge GAUTHERIE

unread,
Mar 6, 2005, 8:39:10 PM3/6/05
to
Daniel Herrera wrote:

> Michael Lefevre wrote:
>
>> I don't really see how they can do that... if they release a 1.8 final,
>> 1.7 users will move to it. If it's going to be for developers and
>> testers
>> only, those people could just grab a nightly build from the 1.8 branch.
>>
> I also thought "stable" as meaning "long lived" like 1.0.x, 1.4.x,
> 1.7.x, but we still had 1.2.x, 1.3.x, 1.5.x, 1.6.x, official releases.

Exactly !

There are two main issues about a (alpha/beta/final) release versus a
nightly:

1) advertising: which could be very reduced (as it is already), and bear
a clear statement about MAS v1.7.x and FF+TB v1.0.x status toward
"end-users".

2) freezing the tree, testing and fixing it: which is what those of us
who still prefer to stick to MAS for the time being are looking for.

Marco Haefliger

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 4:27:11 AM3/7/05
to
> Larry

Larry, I'm totally agree with you!

Simon Paquet

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 4:40:08 AM3/7/05
to
Adam Hauner wrote on 06.03.2005:

>> Why don't you and others, who are not satisfied with the road
>> that the MoFo has taken, get your act together and *DO* something.
>> See also http://www.steelgryphon.com/blog/index.php?p=32
>> I always hear you guys clamoring how bad the MoFo is and so on, but
>> nobody actually does something. This will have to change if the Suite
>> should have a future.
>
> Simon, any tip for non-developers? Should I sold house, car etc. and
> pay some developer? =)

- Setup a home page to coordinate Seamonkey efforts.
- Write a set of requirements for future releases and find people who
are willing to commit themselves to complete these requirements
- Find someone to be the Seamonkey App Czar or do it yourself
- Ask Asa what would be necessary to bring out a stable Seamonkey
release
and release 1.8 when the time is right

> For others, note comment by Bernd bellow Mike's spot.

I'm sorry for saying this, but Bernd's comment is just the same old
whining that I hear from Seamonkey supporters all the time. Instead
of committing themselves they find reasons why something is not
possible.

Take a look back at how Phoenix was created. It was born, because
some hackers where not satisfied with the course the Suite was taking
and it happened because a few guys did some work in their _free time_.

--
Simon Paquet

HJ

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 4:54:02 AM3/7/05
to
Simon Paquet wrote:
<snip/>

> Take a look back at how Phoenix was created. It was born, because
> some hackers where not satisfied with the course the Suite was taking
> and it happened because a few guys did some work in their _free time_.

This is how I look at it:

1) Phoenix was made out of frustration over Netscape (AOL/Time Warner)
by David Hyatt, later joined by Blake and others.

2) Most of the current Mozilla Firefox developers didn't like this new
concept at start (IRC logs as proof).

3) The Seamonkey frustration could have been avoided IMHO with a working
installer and work that has been done over the last two years.

Yeah, you can (easily) glue Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird and NVU and have
a Seamonkey 2.0 if you like. Just look at the code, open the JAR files,
it is all there and there's still tons of overlapping code...so it is
not impossible, but most likely just *unwanted* by the Mozilla
Foundation, for whatever reason...

/HJ

Larry Belan

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 11:54:11 AM3/7/05
to
HJ wrote:


The word "UNWANTED" above is the scary one here.

WHY is MoFo NOT interested in using all this code? MoFo should support
ALL the code, not the 'bits & peices' that appeal to the public. That
again is more 'marketing' rather than OSS development and support.

I really have issues with MoFo 'homing in' on a product. They need to
support it all. Let some other 'foundation' do the marketing.

IF I were a coder (which I haven't done in ten years) and had more free
personal time to invest, I would. I could contribute to working on
test cases and triage, but I'd need a bit of help from the younger folks
out there. ;)

--

Larry

Boris Zbarsky

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 12:43:50 PM3/7/05
to
Boris Zbarsky wrote:

> Simon Paquet wrote:
>> I'm sorry for saying this, but Bernd's comment is just the same old
>> whining that I hear from Seamonkey supporters all the time. Instead
>> of committing themselves they find reasons why something is not
>> possible.

I seem to have misunderstood what comment this was referring to.... It's
referring to Bernd's comment on
<http://www.steelgryphon.com/blog/index.php?p=32>, apparently.

Simon, my apologies.

That said, I would like to point out that Firefox didn't get to a point where it
was actually shippable until it _did_ have someone working on it full-time and
being paid to do so. Even then, several other Mozilla Foundation employees (jst
and dbaron come to mind) helped out with getting the code into shape to ship.

And now that we're not seeing that level of (paid) involvement, we're in the
situation addressed by Mike's recent blog post at
<http://www.steelgryphon.com/blog/index.php?p=37>.

Draw from this what conclusions you will.

-Boris

James Graham

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 12:22:40 PM3/7/05
to
Gervase Markham wrote:
> 2005-02-28 - Summary of mozilla.org staff meeting
> -------------------------------------------------

>
> *Mozilla 1.8 final*
>
> - To be discussed tomorrow whether we do one
>

I'm not sure that I understand this point. Does "Mozilla" in this
context mean "Seamonkey" or "Gecko"? Presumably there will be a Gecko
1.8 final at some point for FF + TB + other embeddors to base products
on? If so does "not doing" a 1.8 final just mean that Gecko 1.8 won't be
blocked by Seamonkey-only issues, meaning that, subject to a willing and
capable group of volunteers, Seamonkey 1.8 can be finished up after the
Gecko 1.8 release, just like any other Gecko-based product. Or am I
missing something?

Boris Zbarsky

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 12:20:24 PM3/7/05
to
HJ wrote:
> Yeah, you can (easily) glue Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird and NVU and have
> a Seamonkey 2.0 if you like.

You can't glue Firefox/Thunderbird to NVU as things stand. You'd need to ship
two Geckos....

Perhaps onve NVU lands back on trunk (and the Gecko changes get reviewed,
accepted by the relevant module owners, and merged into the trunk Gecko).

-Boris

Boris Zbarsky

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 12:19:11 PM3/7/05
to
Simon Paquet wrote:
> Adam Hauner wrote on 06.03.2005:

>> For others, note comment by Bernd bellow Mike's spot.
>
> I'm sorry for saying this, but Bernd's comment is just the same old
> whining that I hear from Seamonkey supporters all the time. Instead
> of committing themselves they find reasons why something is not
> possible.

Excuse me for the language, but this is complete and utter bullshit. Mike's
comments were to the effect that there is insufficient developer involvement and
very little involvement at the level needed to be able to review code. Bernd
pointed out (correctly) that the latter was an explicit stated goal of the
Firefox project since its inception, so it's not exactly surprising that it was
achieved.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with SeaMonkey.

It's not clear to me what you think Bernd is not committing himself to here.
Care to clarify? I look forward most eagerly to your explanation (or apology to
Bernd, as you deem fit).

> Take a look back at how Phoenix was created. It was born, because
> some hackers where not satisfied with the course the Suite was taking
> and it happened because a few guys did some work in their _free time_.

Unlike Bernd, who must be getting paid to have taken on ownership of all the
table layout code, right? Or Mike Connor, who must be getting paid to be the
only Firefox peer who actually reads his bugmail?

-Boris

Robert Kaiser

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 12:53:31 PM3/7/05
to
> That's a slap in the face for those who have tried to do UI development
> for Seamonkey during the 1.8 phase. Especially since the announcement
> that there might only be betas but no final came as an offhand remark in
> someones blog and after some 6 (or 7?) months of 1.8 development.

There will be a final if there's a community willing to do the release.
Help wanted!

Additionally, if you want SeaMonkey to see even further releases, please
help our effort outlined a bit in
http://wiki.mozilla.org/wiki/SeaMonkey:Home_Page

Robert Kaiser

Robert Kaiser

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 1:04:24 PM3/7/05
to
Simon Paquet schrieb:

> Adam Hauner wrote on 06.03.2005:
>
>>> Why don't you and others, who are not satisfied with the road that
>>> the MoFo has taken, get your act together and *DO* something.
>>> See also http://www.steelgryphon.com/blog/index.php?p=32
>>> I always hear you guys clamoring how bad the MoFo is and so on, but
>>> nobody actually does something. This will have to change if the Suite
>>> should have a future.
>>
>>
>> Simon, any tip for non-developers? Should I sold house, car etc. and
>> pay some developer? =)

Basically, we all would love that ;-)
You can also contribute in doing QA for the release, I guess that's one
of the efforts we need. And, of course, you can get into being a
developer - "learning by doing" is the phrase here...

What we badly need is an active core developer group an an "app czar" or
project leader or whatever you call it.

> - Setup a home page to coordinate Seamonkey efforts.

http://wiki.mozilla.org/wiki/SeaMonkey:Home_Page should work well for
coordinating developers. When development is working again, we can look
into other issues.

> - Write a set of requirements for future releases and find people who
> are willing to commit themselves to complete these requirements

The most important requirements are there. We lack people working on
them though (most important seems to be the port to toolkit/xulrunner).

> - Find someone to be the Seamonkey App Czar or do it yourself

That's another big point, correct.

> - Ask Asa what would be necessary to bring out a stable Seamonkey release
> and release 1.8 when the time is right

I think we're basically on a good way (that is, after beta2 and branch
stabilization of Gecko and core stuff) from the stability standpoint and
such things (UI is pretty little changed and therefore quite stable),
but we still need to do good QA and get it out the door, right.

I think I'll create a 1.8 release page on the wiki for planning it.

Robert Kaiser

Robert Kaiser

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 1:17:50 PM3/7/05
to
Boris Zbarsky schrieb:
> At least:
> [...]

Created http://wiki.mozilla.org/wiki/SeaMonkey:1.8_release out of that
post, I think we can use that wiki page to get internal planning for
that release on the way...

Robert Kaiser

Boris Zbarsky

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 1:21:06 PM3/7/05
to st...@mozilla.org
Robert Kaiser wrote:
> The most important requirements are there. We lack people working on
> them though (most important seems to be the port to toolkit/xulrunner).

This is currently somewhat blocked by the limbo regarding review rules in
toolkit, as far as I can tell. Specifically, Neil had strong reservations about
moving SeaMonkey to toolkit while it's not clear that toolkit code won't
suddenly get whacked with no review and little testing.

Ccing staff because I recall the issue of "we shouln't need to formally
announce/enforce review as long as module owners do it" being raised. THIS is
the reason we need a formal announcement, if the policy has actually been changed.

Frankly, if Neil and I are not sure what the review rules for toolkit are, that
doesn't say good things to me about general communication issues.... ;)

-Boris

Karsten Düsterloh

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 2:12:32 PM3/7/05
to
asa dotzler aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:

> It means that we're focused on shipping our premier applications,
> Firefox and Thunderbird,

Do you /really/ believe that any company/institution that up to now
rolled out Mozilla-the-nearly-complete-and-fully-featured-Web-Suite in
their IT would now happily jump upon the train of having twice the
rollout work for much less features?

> and any efforts we're spending on Seamonkey right now are devoted to
> maintaining the 1.7 branch with security and stability updates.

I still don't understand what's making Seamonkey the Dodo you want us to
believe... And I don't see much structural differences between making a
1.8a/b release and a 1.8f.

>> Why have a beta if there will not be a final?
>
> Seamonkey is a fine testbed for Gecko improvements that will be a
> part of any application releases that come from the 1.8 branch.

<polemic>
Why do you /fear/ that 1.7.x users would be moving to 1.8 instead of
FF/TB, if this couple is oh so magnifiecient?
</polemic>

If people would move to 1.8 that surely is a sign that there's a future
in Seamonkey!


Karsten
--
Freiheit stirbt | Fsayannes SF&F-Bibliothek:
Mit Sicherheit | http://fsayanne.tprac.de/

Rickkins

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 2:18:32 PM3/7/05
to
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:53:31 +0100, Robert Kaiser <ka...@kairo.at>
wrote:

>There will be a final if there's a community willing to do the release.
>Help wanted!
>
>Additionally, if you want SeaMonkey to see even further releases, please
>help our effort outlined a bit in
>http://wiki.mozilla.org/wiki/SeaMonkey:Home_Page
>
>Robert Kaiser

I'd be more than willing to help...only thing is I don't really have
any coding skills. Not sure what I could do, but if there's something
I can do...count me in.

Simon Paquet

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 2:50:49 PM3/7/05
to
Boris Zbarsky wrote on 07.03.2005:

>>> I'm sorry for saying this, but Bernd's comment is just the same
>>> old whining that I hear from Seamonkey supporters all the time.
>>> Instead of committing themselves they find reasons why something
>>> is not possible.
>
> I seem to have misunderstood what comment this was referring to....
> It's referring to Bernd's comment on
> <http://www.steelgryphon.com/blog/index.php?p=32>, apparently.

Yep.

> Simon, my apologies.

Granted.

> That said, I would like to point out that Firefox didn't get to
> a point where it was actually shippable until it _did_ have someone
> working on it full-time and being paid to do so. Even then,
> several other Mozilla Foundation employees (jst and dbaron come to
> mind) helped out with getting the code into shape to ship.

I'm not saying that it will be easy to ship the suite, but it should
also be remembered that the suite in its current state is in a much
better fashion than Phoenix was at that time.

> And now that we're not seeing that level of (paid) involvement,
> we're in the situation addressed by Mike's recent blog post at
> <http://www.steelgryphon.com/blog/index.php?p=37>.

Not everything is well in Firefox land. I sent a mail to drivers@m.o
to talk about the issues Mike raises in his blog post.

> Draw from this what conclusions you will.

I focus my attention on Sunbird at the moment ;-) Much more gratifying
for me personally.

--
Simon Paquet

Boris Zbarsky

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 6:18:54 PM3/7/05
to
HJ wrote:
> Yes, I agree that we need Daniels approval, but most of the code, if not
> all, was already MPL'ed before he even started to work on Nvu, so I
> don't expect it to be an issue.

Sure.

> Also, didn't he had plans to port it to the trunk already?

He did, yes.

Are you volunteering to merge in the style system, parser, etc changes?

Or are you volunteering someone else?

-Boris

Leonidas Jones

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 11:50:42 PM3/7/05
to

Hear Hear!!

Lee

Justin Wood (Callek)

unread,
Mar 7, 2005, 11:58:44 PM3/7/05
to
Leonidas Jones wrote:
> Karsten Düsterloh wrote:
>
[[[snip]]]
>>
>>
>> Karsten
>
>
> Hear Hear!!
>
> Lee

To try and keep this thread condensed, and with relevant material, I
(not being anyone "important") would suggest and ask, that unless you
have something to add to the conversation, not to reply.

(I am sorry for single-ing you out Lee, but you were the last post here
that I seen)

Again, I am not anyone who would have any real [official] reason to
request this, but I feel it would help everyone who is trying to follow
this in any means.

~Justin Wood (Callek)

P.S. Replies to this post solely, can be directed to me at
Cal...@gmail.com if anyone needs to, to keep this thread clean as well.

Ognyan Kulev

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 5:57:40 AM3/8/05
to
Larry Belan <larr...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<d0i0vl$bi...@ripley.netscape.com>...

> WHY is MoFo NOT interested in using all this code? MoFo should support
> ALL the code, not the 'bits & peices' that appeal to the public. That
> again is more 'marketing' rather than OSS development and support.
>
> I really have issues with MoFo 'homing in' on a product. They need to
> support it all. Let some other 'foundation' do the marketing.
>
> IF I were a coder (which I haven't done in ten years) and had more free
> personal time to invest, I would. I could contribute to working on
> test cases and triage, but I'd need a bit of help from the younger folks
> out there. ;)

I would advice anyone that hasn't done project management to shut up
and not talk about things that (s)he doesn't understand. Limited
resources require a few things to focus on and leaving other things.

As for the marketing point, the "you promised SeaMonkey to live
forever" is marketing too. Sometimes promises just can't be kept.

Where are the thousands that want SeaMonkey when it's time for
development and dirty work?

Regards,
ogi

Phil Hühn

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 7:48:53 AM3/8/05
to
Larry Belan wrote:

> I fear the worst, because I feel that something's not going in right
> direction, and my interest in MoFo and it's projects are fading. That
> truly disturbs me.
>
> Larry

I also agree with you Larry. There are a lot of people out there who
prefer the suite. (Personally one thing that bothers me with FF/TB is
when I've tried to find some feature, only to find it was left out...
yes I realise it's meant to be 'slimmed down'.)

Must say, I'm uneasy at repeated statements implying the suite will
slowly die (or get nothing other than essential attention)... while I'd
like to think that contributors will not let this happen, the negative
environment does not offer much encouragement.

Phil Hühn

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 7:58:34 AM3/8/05
to
Boris Zbarsky wrote:

> Rickkins wrote:
>
>> Frankly, the suite may best be served by getting it into the hands of
>> people who actually want it to be the 'main' product...
>
>
> Absolutely. Do you have people in mind who have time to do this? If
> so, I'd love to know who they are. They are sorely needed.
>
> -Boris
Count me in... just once I get an end to my 16-hour days ;-)

Nomax

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 12:43:19 PM3/8/05
to
Ognyan Kulev a écrit :

> Where are the thousands that want SeaMonkey when it's time for
> development and dirty work?

Dop you think that if Firefox developement, you would find thousand
people to do the dirty work? No! Only the guy who are paid to work on it
and a few others.

I love SeaMonkey and I use it. At the company I work for, Mozilla is
installed on each PC but we couldn't help in any other way than continue
to use it. :-(

--
Arcade Belgium - http://www.arcadebelgium.be/

Nomax

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 12:47:17 PM3/8/05
to
Sorry for my cryptic message, correction:

Ognyan Kulev wrote :

> Where are the thousands that want SeaMonkey when it's time for
> development and dirty work?

Do you think that if Firefox development is halted, you would find
thousands
of people to do the dirty work? No! Only the guys who are paid to work

Gervase Markham

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 1:23:18 PM3/8/05
to
Adam Hauner wrote:
>> - Aiming for June 1st, but this may not be realistic
>
> Define realistic plan, then term and finish work in time.

To clarify: the point here is that we were aiming at June 1st, but now
realise that may not be realistic, so drivers are going through a
replanning process.

We certainly don't plan on just saying "oh, it's June 1st" even when we
know we won't hit it.

Gerv

Gervase Markham

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 1:23:38 PM3/8/05
to
James Graham wrote:
>> *Mozilla 1.8 final*
>>
>> - To be discussed tomorrow whether we do one
>
> I'm not sure that I understand this point. Does "Mozilla" in this
> context mean "Seamonkey" or "Gecko"?

Seamonkey.

Gerv

Gervase Markham

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 1:26:10 PM3/8/05
to
Larry Belan wrote:
> WHY is MoFo NOT interested in using all this code? MoFo should support
> ALL the code, not the 'bits & peices' that appeal to the public. That
> again is more 'marketing' rather than OSS development and support.

Why are you assuming that HJ speaks for the MoFo?

> I really have issues with MoFo 'homing in' on a product. They need to
> support it all. Let some other 'foundation' do the marketing.

Having said the above, I should point out that maintaining the 1.7.x
branch, the Firefox and Thunderbird 1.0.x branches, and the trunk is a
lot of work, particularly when you have to do releases from all of them
near-simultaneously if there's a security issue.

Gerv

Karsten Düsterloh

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 2:50:22 PM3/8/05
to
Gervase Markham aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:

Mmh, well, instead of calling it "1.8 final" or simply "1.8"
- how about "1.8 gamma"? *g*

Nomax

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 3:47:15 PM3/8/05
to

> Do you /really/ believe that any company/institution that up to now
> rolled out Mozilla-the-nearly-complete-and-fully-featured-Web-Suite in
> their IT would now happily jump upon the train of having twice the
> rollout work for much less features?

Of course not. At the company I work for, Mozilla is installed on each
PC. Company's internal mail is entirely configured for Mozilla.
If Mozilla's development is stopped. Our company will still use the
current version since it perfectly fits our needs. So it won't bring
more people to Firefox.

Nomax

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 5:26:59 PM3/8/05
to
Gervase Markham a écrit :

To clear things up:

Mozilla (for Mosaic-killer Godzilla) was the project name of Netscape.

When Mozilla came out under this name, a new project name was found for
it: Seamonkey.

Graham

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 9:00:35 PM3/8/05
to
Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
> To try and keep this thread condensed, and with relevant material, I
> (not being anyone "important") would suggest and ask, that unless you
> have something to add to the conversation, not to reply.

Don't agree. Part of the issue is that suite users are being relegated
to the back burner because there aren't many of us. If we keep quiet,
that only increases that perception.

For my part I feel particularly aggravated that having spent several
years using Mozilla in various states of (mal)function and reporting
bugs now and again, I'm effectively now being told I'm a nuisance.

It wouldn't be so bad if Firefox was actually better than Mozilla, but
it isn't, it's a stripped out version: it feels like a browser with
training wheels which can't be removed.

Graham.

--
*-* Please remove spam free prefix before replying *-*

Chris Ilias

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 10:30:21 PM3/8/05
to
_Graham_ spoke thusly:

> Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
>
>>To try and keep this thread condensed, and with relevant material, I
>>(not being anyone "important") would suggest and ask, that unless you
>>have something to add to the conversation, not to reply.
>
> Don't agree. Part of the issue is that suite users are being relegated
> to the back burner because there aren't many of us. If we keep quiet,
> that only increases that perception.

ie. spam.
Please don't saturate this newsgroup, to the point where it isn't
useful. You want to show your numbers? Do a petition. If there aren't
many of you, don't try to change the perception to manipulate others.

Mozilla.org announced the change of development focus to the stand-alone
apps, *before* MoFo decided to market toward end-users. Seamonkey users
should have known this was coming, when they started using it.

> It wouldn't be so bad if Firefox was actually better than Mozilla, but
> it isn't, it's a stripped out version: it feels like a browser with
> training wheels which can't be removed.

You can't use that as an argument, because it's a matter of opinion.
--
Chris Ilias - Mozilla Champion
Email - 2004...@ilias.ca
Netscape/Mozilla Links <http://ilias.ca>
Mozilla Help <http://ilias.ca/mozilla/>

Boris Zbarsky

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 11:12:35 PM3/8/05
to
Chris Ilias wrote:
> Mozilla.org announced the change of development focus to the stand-alone
> apps, *before* MoFo decided to market toward end-users. Seamonkey users
> should have known this was coming, when they started using it.

I'm sorry, but this statement conveniently ignores the fact that SeaMonkey was
already being used at the time, both by end users and corporations. Just
because MoFo wasn't marketing it that way, doesn't mean it wasn't being used
that way.

-Boris

Chris Ilias

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 11:20:54 PM3/8/05
to
_Boris Zbarsky_ spoke thusly:

> I'm sorry, but this statement conveniently ignores the fact that SeaMonkey was
> already being used at the time, both by end users and corporations. Just
> because MoFo wasn't marketing it that way, doesn't mean it wasn't being used
> that way.

I was hoping someone would bring that up, because I find it ironical
that people who ignored "for testing purposes only" on www.mozilla.org
would complain that they are being ignored by Mozilla.org. :-)

Alex Vincent

unread,
Mar 8, 2005, 11:56:20 PM3/8/05
to
Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org> wrote in message news:<d0kqin$nf...@ripley.netscape.com>...

> To clarify: the point here is that we were aiming at June 1st, but now
> realise that may not be realistic, so drivers are going through a
> replanning process.
>
> We certainly don't plan on just saying "oh, it's June 1st" even when we
> know we won't hit it.
>
> Gerv


Replanning is much more palatable than abandoning -- and the very
ambiguity of the issue is what has so many of us alarmed.

Please keep us posted on the discussions, Gerv! :)

Justin Wood (Callek)

unread,
Mar 9, 2005, 12:16:41 AM3/9/05
to

I think you are confused the June 1'st statement, and this sub-thread
itself was about Firefox 1.1's release date.

~Justin Wood (Callek)

Graham

unread,
Mar 9, 2005, 12:42:54 AM3/9/05
to
Chris Ilias wrote:
> _Boris Zbarsky_ spoke thusly:
>
>>I'm sorry, but this statement conveniently ignores the fact that SeaMonkey was
>>already being used at the time, both by end users and corporations. Just
>>because MoFo wasn't marketing it that way, doesn't mean it wasn't being used
>>that way.
>
> I was hoping someone would bring that up, because I find it ironical
> that people who ignored "for testing purposes only" on www.mozilla.org
> would complain that they are being ignored by Mozilla.org. :-)

This has been a convenient cop-out for a long time. If they didn't want
anyone using it, why make it available? And how is anyone supposed to
*test* it without *using* it? It's also rather offensive to have this
thrown back in the faces of people who've been supporting Mozilla's
efforts for years. Where the heck would Firefox be without the large
numbers of people actually *using* Mozilla and shaking the bugs out of
it for years?

Boris Zbarsky

unread,
Mar 9, 2005, 12:32:01 AM3/9/05
to
Chris Ilias wrote:
> I was hoping someone would bring that up, because I find it ironical
> that people who ignored "for testing purposes only" on www.mozilla.org
> would complain that they are being ignored by Mozilla.org. :-)

Given that there was no product that offered equivalent functionality (Netscape
releases were feature-crippled toward the end there, e.g. in terms of the popup
blocker), you find this surprising?

-Boris

Chris Ilias

unread,
Mar 9, 2005, 1:18:36 AM3/9/05
<