Re: Removing Firefox Version Number

On Aug 20, 5:44 pm, Asa Dotzler <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm sorry you're reading it that way, Isaac. I don't think it's
> unreasonable to explain the Mozilla system to you — that the people who
> have earned domain-specific authority on the Mozilla project are going
> to be the most expert on that particular area and that they are trusted
> to use their judgment (or any other tool of their choosing) to make
> decisions for that area. That is the how this project is organized. It
> may sound kind of harsh, but this isn't a democracy and not all opinions
> are equal.
>
> Let me try to give you an example. Maybe that will help. (Maybe not?)
> I'm a member of the Mozilla community. I have been for 13 years. And I
> have lots of opinions about all kinds of areas in the project. I might
> one day, after using Chrome for a week, form the opinion that Chrome's
> networking library is better than Firefox's and I might go to the
> Networking team or module owner and say "you should switch to Chrome's
> networking library".
>
> That's an opinion I'm totally free to have, and I think the Networking
> team would welcome my participation and even my criticism of our
> Networking library, but I am not an expert in Networking issues and I do
> not have a long track record of helping make Firefox's networking
> library great. I could certainly start learning — it's not magic, but
> it's a knowledge I don't have.
>
> So, if the Networking team, or the module owner for the Networking code
> says "no, that's not what we're going to do. that's a bad idea." I may
> ask them why, but I will not demand that they prove with data that they
> are right and I am wrong. They know enough about both Mozilla's and
> Google's code and they know enough about how to write great networking
> features, and they have earned the responsibility and the authority for
> guiding the development of Mozilla's networking library, and so the
> Mozilla governance structure does not require that they have to prove to
> me that I'm the one that is wrong.

Simply because it's not a democracy does not mean it has to be a
dictatorship.  The project leaders could (and should) listen to the
users to get an idea of what they want.  And if they have some insight
that the users lack, it wouldn't be out of line for them to offer a
brief, logical explanation.  "We think users are confused by version
numbers even though we don't have any evidence that this is the case,"
is not a logical explanation.


>  >>> 2. Why haven't Mozilla conducted an online poll to check if users
>  >>> would prefer this? If you have, mind publishing the results?
>  >> While a Mozilla module owner is certainly empowered to put things up
>  >> toa vote, the Mozilla project absolutely does not require changes
>  >> must be subject to polls or popularity contests. That's just not how
>  >> this project works. Again, I'd refer you to the links above if this
>  >> doesn't make sense to you.
>  >
>  > No, you're not required to conduct a poll.  Not unless you want to
>  > base your actions on real data instead of the whims of the "super
>  > talented".
>
> We have a number of paths to "real data". We have an entire team
> dedicated to User Research. We use data when we think it can answer
> questions we have. Other times, we made decisions based on our knowledge
> and experience.

And what in your knowledge and experience has led you to the
conclusion that anyone is confused by having a version number in the
About dialog?


>  >>> 4. Asa's responses smack (if not reek) of hubris, and that, though
>  >>> cavil, is enough of a reason to be put off.
>  >> I'm sorry I've made you feel that way.
>  >
>  > Maybe if you stopped with the whole "we're super talented and highly
>  > educated" attitude you'd make fewer people feel that way.  To coin a
>  > phrase, "People do not care how much you know until they know how much
>  > you care."
>
> I don't pretend to be super talented or highly educated in the area of
> writing code. But Mozilla does have some super talented and highly
> educated programmers. I don't feel like they don't care about me or
> Mozilla because we do not share the same knowledge and experience.
>
> If I were making demands of Mozilla programmers, telling them how to do
> their jobs and they told me "No, we're not going to do that because we
> know better." I would not call that hubris. I'd hope that they would
> take the time to listen to me and to answer reasonable questions, but I
> absolutely do not pretend that I know more about programming than they do.
>
> I think that's completely reasonable.

So, by all means take the time to *listen* to us and *answer* our
reasonable questions.  I think this entire discussion can be
summarized in one word:  "Why?"  Thus far, your non-answer has been
"because our knowledge and experience says so".  That's not
satisfactory.  Provide some sort of tangible reason why "Firefox
checked for updates 20 minutes ago and you are up-to-date.  Version
6.0." is more confusing than "Firefox checked for updates 20 minutes
ago and you are up-to-date."


> I'm sorry if something in my tone makes that seem less reasonable. I do
> have to ask, if you could, for just a moment, put me aside, and just
> read the facts of what I've said and the information about how Mozilla
> works, and if that doesn't make sense to you, ask questions.

Do likewise for us users?


>  >> Transitions can certainly be uncomfortable, even painful. With a much
>  >> larger community today than we had back then, it's going to be
>  >> difficult for even more people.
>  >
>  > That being the case, isn't it all the more important for you to be
>  > certain that the transitions you *do* force on people will be
>  > beneficial?
>
> Yes. We have done that. The decision to move to rapid releases was not
> an easy one. A lot of people put a lot of thought and effort into it. We
> believe it is beneficial but only time will actually tell. There is no
> certainty here. We're all just doing the best we can to make Mozilla
> successful in its mission.

That's not the topic of this discussion.  The presence or lack thereof
of the version number in the About dialog is.  Why are the above
proposals where the version number remains alongside the new "You are
up-to-date" message unreasonable?


>  > So far you've provided no evidence that this one will be, and it
>  > seems like you're causing way more discomfort and pain than this
>  > little "bug" is worth.
>
> Mozilla did not provide evidence that Tabbed Browsing was going to be
> successful. We made a good bet based on our judgment that the feature
> was going to be beneficial. Mozilla did not provide evidence that moving
> from SeaMonkey to Firefox was going to be beneficial -- though we had
> good reasons to believe it would be. Many things come down to judgment
> calls and Mozilla has a pretty good track record there.

Never too late to botch up a good track record, I suppose.  The users
had already provided evidence that tabbed browsing was beneficial, and
what's more tabbed browsing was an *addition* not a *removal*.


> As far as this bug, no, it's probably not worth it. Not right now
> anyway.

So defer its "resolution" until such a time as it *will* be worth it
(probably never).


> But I discovered something interesting a couple of days after
> the discussion exploded. After reading several hundreds very passionate
> comments, it became clear that it wasn't really this version number bug
> that most people were upset about. It was actually the move the rapid
> release process and this was just one tiny aspect of that move that
> caused a lot of people who hadn't before realized that we were
> transitioning to a new model to suddenly realize that.

You're mistaken.  You're assuming that we don't understand Mozilla's
release schedule because we want to know the version number.  I
understand *and support* Mozilla's new rapid release model.  In fact,
part of the reason I'm interested in Firefox's version number is
*because* I'm so attentive to its development.  Most of the other
posters voicing their concerns appear to feel similarly.


> That's not because I'm telling you or anyone else that you don't count
> or that your opinions, or even your expertise, don't matter. I'm
> absolutely not saying that. I'm trying to explain to you how decisions
> are made in the Mozilla project. A part of how that works is that
> Mozilla leaders are expected to listen to feedback and criticism and to
> respond to it.

Thus far, the responses we've received give no indication that Mozilla
is listening at all.  They're not even willing to discuss a compromise
that would make everyone happy (or at least less incensed).


>  > IMHO, you should save the PR nightmares for something a little more
>  > important.  Ironically I've seen far more upset and far less
>  > justification over this minuscule About dialog issue than I saw over
>  > either of the two *major* transitions you just described.  Like
>  > another poster said, choose your battles.
>
> Yes. that's good advice. I'm not talking with you here as a battle
> though. I'm trying to explain to you how Mozilla works as much as
> anything else. I'm also trying to fulfill my responsibility to read and
> respond to as much constructive or well-meaning criticism as I can.

"Choose your battles" is a figure of speech.  I'm saying that Mozilla
shouldn't risk alienating a notable portion of its user base over
something as trivial as a label in a dialog box.  No one "super
talented" and "highly educated" would make such a mistake.