Atypical Confessions of an atypical contributor

I, your favorite hypocrite, traitor or whatever people might call me, thought about writing this for a long time. Just to give a different perspective on things. I have been a contributor for a rather long time (5 years to be exact). I confess that I am not a regular contributor. These things are mostly thoughts that I have, and I am going to be blunt about them. If people can’t deal with it, so be it. And this is not gonna be about Directory Tiles, even though I am eager to write my thoughts about them, but, no, not this time.

#1 – I hate the word ‘Mozillians’.

The word “Mozillians” suggest that people contributing to the Mozilla project are all the same. All one kind. It takes the focus away from potential differences in personality or culture. In my opinion, these differences need to be valued. For we are all different. And the fact that we contribute doesn’t take that difference away.

There’s another reason why I hate that word: “Mozillian” seems like “Human”. A status that, once acquired, lasts forever and cannot be taken away. However, what if I don’t want to be part of that group anymore? I think the term “contributor” is much more suited for that. It still gives some means of escape from the whole thing.

 

#2 – Products mean nothing to me.

Given there’s so much focus on products nowadays: I don’t like that. Products mean nothing to me. It’s just a name for what? Bunch of code? Initiatives? Philosophical thoughts? Honestly, do we need a name for everything? If we think about it, our product is not so different from other products. The browser is written in some programming language and evolved over years. Same for other products. That doesn’t make it ‘awesome’. That just means it’s evolved. Product names are just for identification, and that’s marketing. I don’t have anything to do with marketing reasons. I have my own mind.

Are we humans awesome? You’d assume it depends on the point of view. And YES: IT DOES!

 

#3 – I don’t like direction.

I am someone who values individuality. I don’t like direction. Giving direction means potentially saying “I know more than you do” or “I am better than you”, therefore I tell you what to do, and I will never accept that. Not when it comes to a such diverse group of people as the contributor base.

 

#4 – Good things take time

I don’t like for things being rushed. That’s not how I work. There have been so many things in the past years that have been rushed and then improved and improved or abandoned for reasons. Why not improve them and release them when ready? Unfinished projects do not make us more popular with the userbase.

 

#5 – Controversial discussions are good discussions

On a related note: In order for discussions to get most healthy, it’s important for them to be vivid. Vivid discussions means that any stand point is accepted. It might get a little heated from time to time, but that way we can ensure that there are a lot of thoughts covered in the discussion. I hate it when community doesn’t even have a say in what gets decided.

 

#6 – I hate the “1 million mozillians” initiative.

It’s hard to manage 1 million people. And frankly, I doubt Mozilla can do this. Let’s think about this: People are people, they have their own mind, their own ideals, their own hobbies, their own opinion. You can find more potential reasons in my comment here: http://hoosteeno.com/2013/12/17/a-new-mozillians-org-signup-process/#comment-159

What do they need 1 million contributors for? Hint: It’s not to benefit the people themselves.

About these ads

32 Responses to “Atypical Confessions of an atypical contributor”


  1. 1 gervmarkham March 7, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    1. Are you against all collective nouns, or is “Mozillians” a special exception?

    2. Products are the things we use to change the world to be more like we want it to be. Products are things users actually use.

    3. Direction is how we actually build and ship products, rather than just messing around ineffectually with piles of code.

    4. A product that is too late into the hands of users has a significantly reduced chance of success (see 2).

    5. Yes.

    6. The “1 million” number is aspirational, but growing the number of contributors is essential if we want to be more effective in changing the world.

    • 2 tobbimoz March 7, 2014 at 2:24 pm

      1. The reason why I hate Mozillian is because it exclusively focuses on the aspect “This person is part of Mozilla”. I don’t like this criterion. It doesn’t define the individual in any way. Furthermore, It does not even define that this person is an individual in the first place. It just focuses on the brand name “Mozilla” (urgh).

      2. I am fine with users using products. But I am sick of hearing product names when dealing with community or on community-only events. I am just sick of it (“oh, hello, in the meantime we all know the name, thank you”) . I haven’t been contributing towards Mozilla Firefox, but towards an open organization. Mozilla has shifted away from acting as a typical organization, yes, but that doesn’t change my intentions. Mozilla can change the world, in the meantime I will continue to contribute to my little cause (and do what I like) and that’s not gonna change. The brand name “Mozilla” is not gonna make me shift my favorite areas of contribution, no matter how much pressure there is.

      3. Oh, please. Do you really believe that I am so into Mozilla that I contribute to any of the official things? Contributing to a project where I do not even have direction in is not fun (unless, of course, you do it for the brand and have something to brag about). So, as a contributor with an own mind, I do not believe “I” build or ship anything.

      Would you say that “Things that are outside the direction of the corporation” equals “ineffective”?

      4. Distinction: “Corporate Mozilla world” != “community Mozilla world”. YOU build the product, WE help you (if we want). Anything other than “helping” is too much. Requesting from Mozillians to step up to allow them to have the feeling that Mozilla depends on them is just too much. I couldn’t live with this pressure (and hold on: I would be doing this for free???). Ergo why I don’t contribute to official Mozilla projects. I don’t think it’s appropriate to put pressure on me (and I would feel pressure when people tell me I am part of the lot that “ships the product”).

      Okay, so maybe this is all an illusion, but I haven’t got remotely close to finding someone to direct concerns to at Mozilla (wait a second, Brian King, but his delay is about 1 month for serious e-mails, so, maybe hire someone better, Mozilla?). And it’s exactly THIS feeling of being alone with one’s concerns that makes me so angry and that gives me the impression that Mozilla does not care about the individual, just about the work. Oh, wait, let’s remember: I am still doing this for free. This is pressure, I tell you.

      5. Mozilla does not want “people”. They want “Mozillians”. People that do what they are told. If Mozilla wanted people that “occasionally do ineffective things”, I would totally be for it. But this way? No.

      So, as a conclusion, Mozilla wants “1 million people that don’t do ineffective things, whereby Mozilla defines the meaning of that word?”. Now *that’s* interesting!

      • 3 gervmarkham March 7, 2014 at 4:01 pm

        This is the weird thing about having discussions with you – you seem to have a much stronger sense of “them” and “us” in all your thinking than almost anyone else in the project.

        1. The same objection would apply to “German”, “Conservative”, and “Artist”. Which is why I asked you if you were against all collective nouns.

        2. No-one can, and no-one is trying to, force you to contribute to things you don’t want to. (But what you don’t get is the ability to call on significant organizational resources to achieve things which are not in the agreed goals.)

        3. The Corporation exists to allow the Mozilla community to move further and faster in the directions it thinks are most effective for promoting the Mozilla mission. Therefore, almost by definition, things that the Corporation aren’t involved in are probably not being effective in that sense. (“Effective”, of course, is not the same thing as “fun” – things can be one, the other, both or neither.)

        4. You may not want to step up and be depended on, which is fine, but I know that lots of non-employees (and I was one, once) like to be given power and responsibility. In fact, the complaint is more often that they _don’t_ get enough of it! Please don’t assume no-one wants it just because you don’t.

        In conclusion, yes, Mozilla is particularly looking for contributors who share its vision and who want to work on the things Mozilla thinks are most likely to build a world in accordance with that vision. Any purpose-driven organization is the same. The alternative is rudderlessness.

  2. 4 tobbimoz March 7, 2014 at 7:49 pm

    1. There’s a difference between “”German”, “Conservative” and “Artist”” and “Mozillian”. The difference being that Mozillian seems to call for action. You cannot be a passive Mozillian or so it seems. Nor can you be a Mozillian that has nothing to do with Mozilla. But you can be a passive German, e.g. only being born in Germany qualifies for being German. Conservative people can also be passively conservative, and, well, artist is just a profession.

    I believe what I really dislike is that it’s so narrowly defined and so fixed on one company. A “Mozillian” is someone who believes in the Manifesto, created by a company AND acts upon this (wait, didn’t we have this discussion just a while ago?). Maybe it’s the company aspect that I dislike. These other institutions when they exist do not put pressure on individuals to do something in a certain way, if that makes any sense. Mozilla puts pressure on individuals to teach the web the right way, promote certain things. Germany does not. So, these are the differences.

    2. Okay, so what you’re telling me is: “You can do whatever you want, but don’t expect us to care for you if you do your own stuff”. Quite harsh, but this also means that organization sets goals, and community does NOT contribute to setting these goals AT ALL. Which is what I am criticizing. In my humble opinion, dealing with community that doesn’t have any say is not doing it the right way. I am not telling Mozilla to put in organizational resources into these people, but to allow for these people to shape Mozilla as much as the others do.

    3. I disagree. You are telling me that whatever the corporation decides is the best possible way. I disagree to be patronized by a big company. Mozilla should have some trust in its contributors to find possibly more broader ways. Even if this is the most effective way of promoting that mission: You just told me once more that contributors do NOT get any chance in making up their own mind and developing things ACCORDING to the manifesto or contribute to shaping the future of Mozilla (and I am VERY VERY sorry to hear that)

    4. Well, in this case power and responsibility means following the corporation, but doing things in a particular way. So, not thinking on their own.

    I also disagree that the alternative is rudderlessness. There’s no such thing as direction vs. no direction. It’s gradual. Just allowing for some people to have their own side-projects does not hurt the overall mission.

    • 5 gervmarkham March 7, 2014 at 8:24 pm

      OK. How about “Boy Scout”? Or “Libertarian”? It’s pretty weird to be a passive libertarian, or an inactive Boy Scout.

      You keep on with this “company” thing. While I agree there is always work to do in breaking down barriers, you seem determined not only to shore them up, but to build them as high as possible. MoCo is made up of individual, mostly passionate, Mozillians. When you say “the company is deciding direction”, it’s Mitchell, and Brendan, and Jay, and johnath, and so on. They are part of the community, they are the leaders, and they are setting the goals. I agree that process could be a bit more open and transparent – that’s possibly a fair criticism, although it’s hard to decide goals by committee.

      If you don’t agree with the mission and Mozilla’s direction, that’s fine. But why do you then expect to do things under the Mozilla banner, or have input into what activities we do in support of the mission?

      “Just allowing for some people to have their own side-projects does not hurt the overall mission.”

      The Mozilla organization has finite time and finite resources. Side projects which consume either of those without furthering the mission mean that we are not furthering the mission as much as we should. There is some latitude for experimentation to see what things might perhaps serve the mission, but if someone starts out from the beginning saying “promoting the mission is not a concern of mine”, why should Mozilla devote resources to supporting that person?

  3. 6 tobbimoz March 8, 2014 at 12:02 am

    Gerv,

    it is important to keep that barrier between community and company. If this barrier didn’t exist, I would be partly responsible for decisions that I disagree with. Let’s not name those here, but you might know what I am talking about.

    “If you don’t agree with the mission and Mozilla’s direction, that’s fine. But why do you then expect to do things under the Mozilla banner, or have input into what activities we do in support of the mission?”

    There’s no such thing as disagreeing with the whole mission or Mozilla’s whole direction. Let me ask one thing (and repeat myself in the process): Why should Mozilla officials like the ones you mentioned have a better understanding than each of us volunteers? This is underestimating and potentially patronizing. Good ideas might come from volunteers as well as Mozilla officials. Bad ideas might come from volunteers as well as Mozilla officials. I am not saying that Mozilla should support every far-fetched idea from every single contributor there is. I am just saying that they shouldn’t be so ignorant to say “We are setting the direction and you can follow it or not” but to allow for some community involvement and by that I mean something else than just following (which is boring, by the way).

    Let me give you another perspective:
    We volunteer contributors are not a resource. Our time is finite as well. Mozilla activities, which clearly consume our time and do not advance our personal lives, studies, employment etc (at all, I might add). Now, if I told you that I will only do things under the Mozilla banner that have intersections with my personal interests, it might need some latitude for experimentation to see if we do contribute, but why should we devote our interests to Mozilla when the path set by them is clearly too strict for us, and maybe does not help us in any way?

    How many resources does it take to allow people to be human beings? If you can give me a detailed answer to that, I am sure we can find ways to reduce costs. If we are talking about manpower, then, I should tell you: Well, that’s okay. You cannot force us to do anything, so don’t even try.

    What’s wrong with letting people develop their own ideas under the broad rules set forth in the Manifesto?

    • 7 gervmarkham March 10, 2014 at 2:35 pm

      “What’s wrong with letting people develop their own ideas under the broad rules set forth in the Manifesto?”

      Nothing. Where did I say there was? But I’ll repeat my final point again:

      “The Mozilla organization has finite time and finite resources. Side projects which consume either of those without furthering the mission mean that we are not furthering the mission as much as we should. There is some latitude for experimentation to see what things might perhaps serve the mission, but if someone starts out from the beginning saying “promoting the mission is not a concern of mine”, why should Mozilla devote resources to supporting that person?”

      • 8 tobbimoz March 10, 2014 at 4:39 pm

        Let me repeat one of my questions again, Gerv:

        How many resources / what kind of resources does it take for Mozilla to “support” someone that is not promoting the mission in the best possible way but promoting the manifesto?

      • 9 gervmarkham March 10, 2014 at 4:44 pm

        That question confuses me in a couple of ways.

        Firstly, you say “support someone”. Did you mean to say “support something”? If someone is asking for support, it’s because there’s a “something” that they want to do, and people will decide to support them or not based on what the “something” is, not who the “someone” is.

        Also, I don’t understand what you mean by “not promoting the mission but promoting the manifesto”.

        It would help greatly if you could give a concrete example.

  4. 10 tobbimoz March 10, 2014 at 4:50 pm

    Okay, assuming I do not like Mozilla’s current way of doing things, and I am not very eager to give up control over my small little project, whatever it is. This project complies with the Mozilla Manifesto, but it’s outside Mozilla’s current “mission”. It doesn’t matter what I am developing, just that I don’t accept control over my little project from someone from Mozilla, so that I am the sole owner of that project and make sure it goes in the appropriate direction and still complies with the Manifesto.

    So, assuming this is the case, how many resources / what kind of resources does it take for Mozilla to “support” this little project?

    • 11 gervmarkham March 10, 2014 at 4:52 pm

      Why do you want Mozilla to support your project, in this scenario? What do you gain?

      • 12 tobbimoz March 10, 2014 at 5:00 pm

        Well, if I want to support Mozilla and be part of the community, but completely don’t like Mozilla’s current way of doing things (especially how they understand “community” nowadays)? In order to get the best of both worlds and still be somewhat independent from all this marketing-y direction talks, this would be the best solution I can think of.

        You’re still not answering my question: “How much time / how many resources does it take for Mozilla to ALLOW (not support) side projects?”.

      • 13 tobbimoz March 13, 2014 at 3:36 pm

        Gerv? It’s not like you to keep me waiting for an answer this long. Please see my previous comment and answer my question.

      • 14 gervmarkham March 13, 2014 at 3:49 pm

        I do have other things to do as well :-P

        I genuinely don’t understand your question. I’ll try and explain why I don’t understand it.

        You begin “How much time / how many resources does it take”. We have been talking about Mozilla providing resources to Mozillians, or the projects they care about, so I assume when I read this part that you are talking about Mozilla-provided resources of some sort (people’s time, legal help, servers, IT support etc.). OK. But then you say ” for Mozilla to ALLOW side projects?” Now I don’t get it. It doesn’t make sense to ask “How much of Mozilla’s resources does it take for Mozilla to allow side projects?” I don’t understand that question at all.

        So you are going to have to spell it out for me very clearly. It might help to avoid words like “it” and instead say exactly what you mean, even if it’s repetitive.

  5. 15 tobbimoz March 13, 2014 at 4:39 pm

    Gerv,

    the thing with Mozilla that is ultimately causing this much of a problem is that I can’t seem to keep enough distance from it when I want to. The projects that Mozilla is currently pushing forward don’t do it for me. What I don’t like along those lines are these “generalizations” that “Mozillians” are filled with intent etc. Maybe that’s why I don’t like this term. I do have a private life, you know. The more Mozilla is pushing us in one direction the bigger the problem for me to stay away from it whenever I want to. Side projects would eliminate this and give me huge control over my time and I can happily lay them aside. I think it’s needed in order for me to not burn out.

    Whenever I hear people from the corporation talking about “Mozillians” it’s to motivate us to do more and more, at least it feels to me like this. What about some appreciation of what we’ve already accomplished?

    It seems like people don’t listen to us to how burnt out we really are. It doesn’t seem to stop anyone from pushing further.

    • 16 gervmarkham March 14, 2014 at 1:27 pm

      It seems weird that two of your points are “No one can force me to do anything!” and “I’m really burnt out!”…

      I hear regular bits of appreciation of what we as a community have accomplished. I hear it from Mitchell, from Jay and from others. Yes, they then turn around and talk about what we still need to do, but that’s great – I expect leaders to put forward a vision of the future.

      I don’t understand why you think your side projects need to happen under the “Mozilla” banner. You seem to want to have it both ways. You want to be able to start a side project with no necessary connection to the Mozilla mission and yet still be able to say “this is a Mozilla project”, use the Mozilla name to promote it, use Mozilla IT resources to run it, and encourage Mozillians to join you as part of their work with Mozilla. I don’t think that’s reasonable.

      If that’s not what you want to do, I don’t get why you can’t just go and do your side projects as you.

      • 17 tobbimoz March 14, 2014 at 1:48 pm

        Whoa, wait a second here.

        I never talked about IT resources. I would assume what I build can be run without Mozilla IT resources (using Github etc.).

        I appreciate what you are doing. I don’t appreciate your leadership strategy and your vision. I will not give myself up for this company. And I would appreciate if you would make sure others don’t either.

        Since I believe my side project would have an obvious connection to the Mozilla Manifesto, not the corporate-driven mission, I would assume it is appreciated anyway, right?

        And regarding encouraging Mozilians to join them: This has happened before, with labs projects, right? It’s not like Mozillians are a resource.

        Answer me this question: Whose property are Mozillians? If these people want to do something else, why can’t they. Since Mozillians are volunteer contributors I also don’t see anything wrong with promoting a project that clearly has connection with the Mozilla Manifesto inside the volunteer space. Mozilla does the same thing.

  6. 18 gervmarkham March 14, 2014 at 2:25 pm

    I find this discussion very difficult because you keep changing what you seem to be saying. Now you are saying that people are stopping you advertising Mozilla-manifesto-relevant projects to Mozillians? Who is doing this? What project?

    • 19 tobbimoz March 14, 2014 at 2:31 pm

      By specifically advertising the small subset of projects that are in the Mozilla Mission, Mozilla is potentially stopping contributors from getting interested in exploring the other projects that are not advertised. That is clear as air to me.

      Do you believe the vast majority of NEW Mozillians has ever heard of Seamonkey?

      • 20 gervmarkham March 14, 2014 at 3:17 pm

        You think that SeaMonkey should have equal billing with Firefox when Mozilla is trying to attract new community members?

        Why do you think that doing that would be better for the Mozilla Mission than the way things currently work?

  7. 21 tobbimoz March 14, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    I am saying that people who offer their time and expertise when helping Mozilla should at least get a fair choice to contribute to the project THEY want, not Mozilla. You cannot deny that working on projects that support the Manifesto does something good for our cause, can you?

    It might not be better for the mission, but it might be better for the individual. More choice equals more to choose from, right? And more to choose from equals happier contributors.

    And happiness of contributors is important right? Or would you say that the mission is even more important than the welfare of the people?

    • 22 gervmarkham March 14, 2014 at 3:31 pm

      You are effectively saying that the priorities of Mozilla-the-organization, and the activities which go on under the Mozilla banner, should be defined by anyone, rather than by the Mozilla leadership.

      (You say it would only be “projects that support the Manifesto”, but who decides what supports the Manifesto? If it’s the person themselves, you have the situation I’ve just outlined. If it’s the leadership, then we have the current situation, which you don’t like.)

      I disagree. I think that would lead to lack of focus, lack of execution, lack of effectiveness, and general chaos. It would not push the mission forward nearly as much. And I want Mozilla to succeed.

      Happiness of contributors is important, but it is not required that Mozilla do whatever it takes to make them happy, no matter what their demands are. No-one is forced to be involved with Mozilla. If people are unhappy doing what Mozilla is doing, they can argue for specific change, with mission-based rationale, or they can go and do their thing elsewhere, and good luck to them. No hard feelings.

  8. 23 tobbimoz March 14, 2014 at 5:21 pm

    What’s effective to you, Gerv?

    How can there be something like effectiveness when talking about people? Using people effectively who join Mozilla because they believe they’re doing something for a good cause and they are just resources to Mozilla. You make it sound like people need to be spent effectively (like money). I refuse to that kind of thinking… Maybe my moral standards are just higher than yours, who knows.

    Let me think of the ‘before’ again. There were community-governed projects and corporation-governed projects side-by-side. It was obvious which ones were more important and which ones were less important, but they still existed and people took heavy interest in them.

    There was never such a thing as general chaos. Maybe not EVERY SINGLE contributor was doing something to advance corporate goals, but did it matter?

    And maybe for those people, like you, who prefer to think in terms of advancing the manifesto: People that are unhappy with their work will not be as performant as others. Neither will people who just joined specific projects because a lot of focus was on those, without realizing where their true interests were. Do you really want people who are unhappy but do their work nevertheless?

  9. 24 gervmarkham March 14, 2014 at 8:35 pm

    You are making the error of false dichotomy. You are arguing that there are only two options – a) anyone can do whatever they like under the Mozilla banner, and b) treating people like disposable objects. I reject your false choice.

    Having focus, goals, leadership, and encouragement for everyone to all move in the same direction is not the same as treating people as objects.

    If you ask the director of the Red Cross in a disaster area whether he wants to deploy his volunteers effectively, he would say “of course”. That doesn’t mean he is treating them like objects. And it doesn’t mean he has to let them do anything they want.

    There are still all sorts of projects which are part of Mozilla. SeaMonkey has been here for 10 years. And people who want to work on them, work on them. And no-one forces them to do anything else. You are knocking down straw men.

    • 25 tobbimoz March 14, 2014 at 8:49 pm

      Your analogy is flawed. “Red Cross” deals with situations in which each person matters. It could be a matter that is life-saving, thus saving the life depends on a good organisation of their volunteers. Mozilla is not one of those organizations.

      ‘Having focus, goals, leadership, and encouragement for everyone to all move in the same direction is not the same as treating people as objects.’

      That depends. If the person himself only becomes a number, that means to me that he is treated like an object. An object being ‘this contributor, we only care about him so much that we can assign him a task and we only care about him so he can help us achieve a goal’ is like an object / tool to me. Everything that makes this person unique, as in, how he feels, how he thinks, what interests he has, becomes irrelevant since this powerful focus, goals and leadership exists.

      You have said yourself that “If people are unhappy doing what Mozilla is doing, they can argue for specific change, with mission-based rationale, or they can go and do their thing elsewhere, and good luck to them.” that means the mission comes first, and the contributor’s welfare is second.

      I have always held mozilla in high regards, but this is just not the way I would want to be treated.

      • 26 gervmarkham March 14, 2014 at 9:10 pm

        “that means the mission comes first, and the contributor’s welfare is second.”

        Those two things cannot be placed in an order.

        If as a contributor, I say “I will be unhappy unless Mozilla lets me build a Mozilla FTP Client on top of Gecko”, and the Mozilla leadership (rightly) says “no; that’s not going to advance our mission”, is my welfare being given “second place”? Should Mozilla let me do that in order to promote my welfare? Or should they simply say “you are welcome to build an FTP client if you like; it’s just not going to be a Mozilla thing”? If they suggest alternative things to do instead that they think _do_ advance the mission, am I being “forced”? Are my rights being infringed? I would say “No, of course not”.

        We seem to be going round in circles here. I’m sorry that you are unhappy. But I don’t think Mozilla is going to change in a way which meets your requirements.

  10. 27 tobbimoz March 14, 2014 at 10:18 pm

    Promoting is not what I am asking for. What I am asking for is “providing the possibilities” as in “not being so narrow in the choice of projects but count on each member of this community to innovate on their own”, maybe a little bit to the side of the main track.

    Has Mozilla ever tried to see this as a chance? Side projects are not always a threat to Mozilla’s integrity. Side projects make the Mozilla Universe more organic AND they advance the mission. Assuming a side project becomes really popular, it advances the mission just because Marketing that project promotes the Mozilla brand, right?

    And also, when you say “If they suggest alternative things to do instead that they think _do_ advance the mission, am I being “forced”? Are my rights being infringed? I would say “No, of course not””

    I think this depends on the broadness of the choices available. When my goal is to be able to drive change on my own without someone looking at my fingertips everytime while coding (metaphorically speaking), I don’t think that I would ever feel free enough to innovate on my own. So, since there doesn’t seem to be a “project that advances the mission AND at the same time gives me enough freedom”, I would think that there’s no way for me to ever feel ‘free’ in the sense of a contributor to an open-source project.

  11. 29 gervmarkham March 22, 2014 at 8:16 pm

    I don’t have anything to say that I’ve not already said, which is why I didn’t comment.

    • 30 tobbimoz March 22, 2014 at 9:05 pm

      Maybe I couldn’t find the answer above, but, let me restate my question, that I don’t believe has been answered so far:
      Has Mozilla ever tried to see this as a chance? Side projects are not always a threat to Mozilla’s integrity. Side projects make the Mozilla Universe more organic AND they advance the mission. Assuming a side project becomes really popular, it advances the mission just because Marketing that project promotes the Mozilla brand, right?

      • 31 gervmarkham March 22, 2014 at 9:15 pm

        People start projects all the time, so I don’t get what you see as stopping you from starting one.

  12. 32 tobbimoz March 23, 2014 at 10:55 pm

    That did not exactly answer my question. But let me answer yours:
    There’s a rather interesting movement going on at Mozilla. I don’t think it is appreciated when I start my own projects. Whenever I want to start my own project, I feel like, well, no one would appreciate it. And given your previous comments, I am right. But at the same time, I want that freedom.

    So, either I go against the marketing, and ignore all of that, which is a huge effort (and I would not WANT to be part of the Mozilla community if that means having to endure marketing and direction) OR I still feel like a part of the community and endure the marketing and direction, and give up part of my freedom. And it would not feel the same to me, anymore.

    Unfortunately, neither of those two options are very, let’s say, tempting to me. I would rather spend my free time on something that is fun, and, in exchange, live a few years longer than submit myself to something I don’t stand for, and die of frustration a few years earlier. Might only be me, who knows.

    Why do you believe so many people contribute to Mozilla? Some of it might do it for the cause, but also a huge part of those just feel very happy when they have someone who they feel appreciates what they are doing. However, *I* feel that this appreciation is turned into a marketing strategy to make people do what Mozilla wants (aka the mission). So, I wonder if this is *true appreciation*. And if it’s not: This “usage of psychology when dealing with people to make them do certain things” is something I feel opposed to, maybe even disgusted by. It’s not only appreciation that might be faked. Again, might only be me.

    Let’s all remember Reps. “Be an official representative of Mozilla”…who would NOT want to feel official and important sometimes? <– Hell, yeah, people are being manipulated right there.

    Let's all remember "Webmaker" – "Who would not want to teach people and in exchange get some true appreciation, and be the leader of something, as in, decide in which direction something goes". <– Oh, wait a minute, is it manipulation again?

    I know very well that there are other projects as well…

    Please, people, more of the honest kind of thing instead of the marketing movement. I don't fall for it, really. Yes, I am disappointed in Mozilla. I can see the need for the current development (on the Mozilla side). But I am still disappointed.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s





Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: