222131 - Remove erroneous text

Status: RESOLVED INVALID

(www.mozilla.org :: General, defect, P3)

Description

[Jerry Baker]

The mozilla.org mission statement has some erroneous text. It states:

  "In this way, it's a self-regulating system: if a module owner is viewed by 
   the public as not doing a good job (perhaps their releases tend to be buggy,
   or non-portable; or perhaps they aren't responsive to bug fixes or
   suggestions) then what will happen is, someone out on the net will say to
   themselves (and to us), 'hey, I can do a better job than that.' And we will
   say to them, 'go right ahead.'"

In fact, we see that when someone does, in fact, step forward and volunteer to
maintain a module, mozilla.org does not say, "go right ahead." Instead, they
say, "no." See bug 195280.

Comment 1

[Daniel Wang]

please indicate which comment in bug 18574 and bug 195280 has someone
volunteering to take over the module.

Comment 2

[Jerry Baker]

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=195280#c42
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=195280#c43

to which Stuart responds:

"If and when Gerard has time to step up and maintain it, he can put it on mozdev
and release it as an addon." Essentially, "no."

Comment 3

[Michael Lefevre]

Those comments are about MNG - the text is about module owners.  I don't think
anyone has said they could do a better job of maintaining the whole of libpr0n.

Having said that, the text is flippant - if Mozilla.org will replace module
owners because someone says "I could do that", they're crazy.  There would need
to be some evidence that they actually could do the job.

Comment 4

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

reassigning endico's bugs to default owner

Comment 5

[Owen Marshall (Not reading bugmail)]

"Having said that, the text is flippant - if Mozilla.org will replace module
owners because someone says "I could do that", they're crazy.  There would need
to be some evidence that they actually could do the job."

the text implies that an idiotic/abusive/poor/gone/etc. module owner can be
replaced by a viable new owner. it sends the right message.

Comment 6

[Michael Lefevre]

It might imply that if you read it that way, but that's not what it actually
says. Not worth having a bug open about it though.

The whole document could probably do with some updating in light of the new
strategy for the products and the fact that the Foundation is employing people
and stuff, but it'd have to be up to the Mozilla folks to do that, and they have
better things to do...