Ben Bucksch wrote: > IMO, the Mozilla community is the highest authority for Mozilla code.
That would be anarchy and chaos, which is why mozilla.org has the module owner system. > If somebody devotes substantional amounts of time to sort out bugs to > make coder's lifes easier and so to help Mozilla, I belive they do > have a right to influence what Mozilla is. Anyone has the right to *try* to influence Mozilla's direction, but everyone is limited by their ability to get code past the module owners and super-reviewers. > Similarily, it makes no sense for me to contribute to Mozilla on one > part just to see my goals being defeated by checkins in other parts. > (Which is the case in the favicon bug.) Nobody gets their way all the time. If it makes no sense, stick to your own browser. > How do you determine what you do? I wish I knew (and so does my manager ;-). Mostly, I just try to do whatever seems needed to get us closer to shipping the next milestone/release. > Doesn't you go to meetings where you decide what Netscape 6 should > have and what not? The newsgroups and bugs are Mozilla's "meetings". At least 95% of what I do is for Mozilla as well as Netscape, and it mostly takes place in the fishbowl. I spend a lot of time in the bugs and newsgroups, and many of the meetings I go to include contributors from outside Netscape. Netscape 6 is not that separate, just Mozilla with slightly different frosting. > And I assure you that mozilla.org staff lost credits in the view on > many contributors when approving the favicon checkin. I doubt that mozilla.org staff had anything to do with 'approving' the favicon checkin. In any case, nearly all decisions on this project are guaranteed to displease some people; that is unavoidable. Peter
