486785 - Community Edition Termination Page

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

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

Description

[Catherine C. Brady]

Attachment: Community Edition Termination Page

Attached is text replaces the current 404 message found at http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/community-edition-policy.html.

Comment 1

[David Boswell]

I just checked in the notice and it should show up soon at:

http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/community-edition-policy.html

Please verify once you see the pages and have checked the text.

Comment 2

[David Boswell]

Reopening.  I didn't realize these weren't ready to post yet.

Comment 3

[Mark Surman]

The aim here seems to clearly communicate the current state of alternative builds and the status of community editions. 

Right now, it's muddled and not quite organized right (e.g. I don't know what I *can* do to customize Firefox until the end of the page).

We might get our message across more effectively if we reorganized / rewrote the page with a flow of ideas something like this:

1. Simple statement that 'this used to be the page for community editions' or something like that.

2. Explanation that most of the needs formerly covered by by community editions are now covered by:

a. Localized versions (which are now much easier to create, and there is much more support and infrastructure to help localizers)

b. Partner builds (explain what these are and link to partner page so people know how to create one)

c. Unbranded versions using Mozilla source code (you already have language on this but it's at the bottom of the page ... it would probably be better right up top)

[in a sense, these options *replace* the community editions, which might be more correct than saying the community editions program has been 'discontinued']

3. Abuse + community editions: short section noting that a number of people were abusing the community editions policy to distribute branded Mozilla software including malware etc. (this is true, right?). Explain that this is an additional reason for dropping the community editions.

[note: this last point is pretty important, as it seems we wouldn't consider dropping community editions if there weren't already other options for good actors to customize Firefox for their locale, linux distro, etc. So, the real point is that there are good options ... and that the abuse is then the secondary point]

4. Information about old community editions, which is mostly in there already.

General style note: the text for all of this should be quite sparse. This is effectively a redirect page.

--

Hopefully, this helps with getting the message across more clearly. Happy to offer more ideas later.

Comment 4

[Catherine C. Brady]

Attachment: Community Edition Redirect Page

Revised text for web page based on Mark's comments.

Comment 5

[Mark Surman]

This new text is much better. Thanks, Catherine. It would be good if one more set of eyes could proofread for detail and clarity. Gerv or Frank?

Comment 6

[Frank Hecker]

This looks generally OK to me. Over to Gerv...

Comment 7

[David Boswell]

I've posted the latest version of the notice on the site at:

http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/community-edition-policy.html
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/community-edition-permitted-changes.html

Please verify once you've had a chance to review the pages.

Comment 8

[Bartłomiej Brzozowiec (BartZilla)]

(In reply to comment #0)
> Created an attachment (id=370990) [details]

(In reply to comment #4)
> Created an attachment (id=371335) [details]

Catherine, could you avoid posting documents in .docx format, please? It is hard to read these documents properly without using software from Microsoft. I am going to upload these documents converted to .odt for maximum availability later.

Now, to the point: despite the comment that suggested otherwise (bug 474865 comment #12) there is no link to the discussion on the mozilla-governance mailing list on http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/community-edition-policy.html.
I think the current wording on the community-edition-policy.html page ("after some discussion, it was clear the program needs were being addressed elsewhere and the cost outweighed the utility") is a blatant manipulation (to say the least). With the link to the discussion a reader could at least has a chance to make his/her own opinion about the matter. So, add the link there, please. (Preferably to something else than Google Groups, see bug 474865 comment #14 for my proposal.)