Re: Removing Firefox Version Number

Isaac Stitz wrote:

> 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.

Well, in some ways it is a dictatorship ;-)

"The ultimate decision-maker(s) are trusted members of the community who 
have the final say in the case of disputes. This is a model followed by 
many successful open source projects, although most of those communities 
only have one person in this role, and they are sometimes called the 
"benevolent dictator". Mozilla has evolved to have two people in this 
role - Brendan Eich has the final say in any technical dispute and 
Mitchell Baker has the final say in any non-technical dispute. This has 
been the case since 1998 for Brendan and 1999 for Mitchell."

But yes, you are correct in that project leaders absolutely should 
listen to user feedback and should listen to feedback from contributors. 
Listening is a key role for project leaders.

But I dispute your suggestion that "Based on our knowledge and our 
experience, we think we're doing the right thing" is not a sufficient 
reply in some cases. I think I've gone well beyond that in this group 
and given a handful of use cases and how Firefox will handle those use 
cases. I've gone on to talk about use cases that are no longer as 
important as they were under our old development model. If you read my 
responses to various people in this forum, you'll see that I've put many 
many hours into offering responses to users and other contributors.

>>   >>>  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?

That, in the use case we optimize for, providing the user with precisely 
the right information to answer her question and no more, is the ideal 
approach.

The use case we think is most important, and the one we've optimized 
for, is the user who wants to know if she's on the latest version of 
Firefox.

>>   >>>  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".

You haven't read all of my answers here then. Before characterizing 
them, can you take the time (and offer me the courtesy of reading the 
responses I've put many many hours into writing)?

> 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've given several examples where including the version number makes the 
interaction far less usable. Please find and read those. I put a long 
time into writing them and I'm doing you the courtesy of reading 
everything you're writing here so presumably you can do that for me too. 
(I don't mean that to sound mean or anything, but I don't want to keep 
writing the same thing over and over. I've got other work to do.)

>> 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?

I think I've done that. I've certainly tried. I'll ask again that you 
read what I've written in the rest of this group. If you have questions 
about those specific posts, please ask on those posts rather than 
asserting that I haven't even made those posts. Thanks.

>>   >>  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?

Actually, I think you'd be surprised. I've read all the comments in this 
thread and it appears that is indeed the topic for just over 2/3rds of 
the posts that people have made. I've tried to respond to both that and 
to the specifics about the version number.

(In the very beginning of the thread, I tried to get people to talk 
about the rapid releases in a more appropriate forum where I'd be happy 
to discuss further but the response was that I was trying to avoid 
answering and so I've just decided to let this discussion thread include 
both topics.

>>   >  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*.

Firefox was a pretty big removal. It removed all of Seamonkey :-) If you 
want to go back and read the forums there, you'll see the months of 
complaints of all of the absolutely critical features that Firefox was 
removing that were going to absolutely kill it dead.

>> 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).

We're talking about that. But I'm mostly convinced that will only 
satisfy a minority of the people complaining on this thread. Have you 
read all of the commentary on this issue around Mozilla forums and the 
Web? It really is mostly focused on the rapid release model and a 
general aversion to *all* change.

>> 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.

I'm not mistaken. Some of you are deeply concerned about the version 
number. But not all. I encourage you to read more of this discussion, 
the bug comments, the discussion threads at slashdot and other tech news 
sites. It's really only a minority of commenters who are at all 
interested in the version number change. There are literally dozens of 
comments that are in the form of "We loved version x.y, go back to that 
and stop changing".

>> 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).

I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope that's not the general consensus 
because if it is then I've wasted a huge amount of time responding to 
you and others trying to help you understand why this change was 
proposed. That you either haven't read those or don't think they were 
informative is a shame.

>>   >  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.

I disagree with your characterization of the people who actually care 
about the location of the version number as "a notable portion." Now, of 
the people who do care deeply about the location of the version number, 
yes, there are a notable portion of that tiny group who are very 
passionately opposed to it being moved. As I've said several times 
above, though, I don't think that most of those people understand the 
change or that Mozilla's moved to a rapid release model that makes the 
considerations around the location of the version number very different 
than they were 6 months ago. That leaves some people who care about 
version numbers, who understand our rapid release model, who understand 
why we want to make this change, and who still oppose it. I see several 
of those people in this forum. I'm trying to respond to those.

I'm not convinced yet that you're one of those people though ;-) I'm 
going to try to convince you that with rapid releases, and for our 
largest audience, the version number belongs in the Troubleshooting page 
and not the About page. I suspect you will try to convince me that's 
wrong, and I hope you'll try by providing use cases where not having a 
version number in the About window will hurt our users.

- A