Status

mozilla.org
Miscellaneous
P3
normal
VERIFIED FIXED
19 years ago
16 years ago

People

(Reporter: Mitchell Baker, Assigned: Dawn Endico)

Tracking

Details

(URL)

Attachments

(1 attachment)

(Reporter)

Description

19 years ago
Reflect reality.  Update general description of mozilla.org.  Update list of
people.
(Reporter)

Updated

19 years ago
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED

Updated

19 years ago
Blocks: 15972

Updated

19 years ago
OS: Mac System 8.5 → other

Comment 1

19 years ago
I'd like to know, if mozilla.org is a legal entity and how members are
determined.

If being an employee of Netscape is no requirement, the page should reflect
that, too.
(Reporter)

Updated

19 years ago
Depends on: 16078
(Reporter)

Updated

19 years ago
Depends on: 16079
(Reporter)

Comment 2

19 years ago
Created attachment 2446 [details]
revised page
(Reporter)

Updated

19 years ago
Assignee: mitchell → endico
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
(Reporter)

Comment 3

19 years ago
As of 10/28, page needs:
1.  Update of Dawn's description
2.  Apostrophes changed to proper format for Unix

Comment 4

19 years ago
Very good. The new page is much more "open".

But I still don't know, how members are elected.

Comment 5

19 years ago
I just read the old page again and I like the new one even more :-).

The involvement of Netscape could maybe go into a FAQ (I guess, Pat Gunn will
like to include it in his FAQ) or to NS servers?
(Reporter)

Comment 6

19 years ago
Don't quite understand this last comment.  Do you mean that more info re netscape
involvement should be included?  We've been trying to reflect the fact that
Netscape is one contributor of many, so I'm not sure we ought to focus much on
Netscape.

Updated

19 years ago
OS: other → All

Comment 7

19 years ago
Mitchell,

I completely agree with you. That's one of the reasons, why I like the new
page.


But I think, many people will be interested in the Netscape-Mozilla relation.
Since www.mozilla.org is in theory not the right place to explain that, such
questions could go into a FAQ.


Please tell me, if I'm still to unclear.

Comment 8

19 years ago
To make it clear: I don't want to change the page.

(Well, there's one thing: I would substitute "and a successful open-source
product" with "products" (note: plural)).
(Reporter)

Comment 9

19 years ago
Understand about the Netscape relationship; people are often confused.  You're
probably right that this should be addressed somewhere, though I too am not quite
sure where.

Comment 10

19 years ago
Mitchell,
if you want the term "Netscape" to go away from www.mozilla.org (for which you
would have my full support), you might want to take a look at "Our Mission"
<URL:http://www.mozilla.org/mission.html>. (Just a hint.)
(Assignee)

Updated

19 years ago
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
(Assignee)

Comment 11

19 years ago
I cleaned this up, alphabetized people and checked it in. I removed the
"mozilla.community" header because that would have made two headers in a
row. ("who we are" followed by "mozilla.community")

Comment 12

19 years ago
Netscape-Mozilla-Relationship:
We could create a page like either "Get It" or "Who uses Mozilla" (similar to
<URL:http://www.openbsd.org/users.html>), which lists products (both commercial
and open source), which use Mozilla code and are representional (good use of
code etc.).
But maybe it's too early for that at the moment.
(Reporter)

Comment 13

19 years ago
I've thought about having a list of people using the code.  Agree we might be a
little early.  We're learning that for big companies there's a difference between
developers working with the code, and making formal announcements from the
corporate PR level.

So waiting a while might make this easier.

Updated

19 years ago
No longer depends on: 16078

Comment 14

17 years ago
for some open source conference mitchell did make a list of who is using
mozilla's code...
QA Contact: timeless

Comment 15

16 years ago
v
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.