> That's also counter to the frequent companion cry of "the community
> doesn't want (foo)." Is the standards system a grassroots system? No.
> It's a group of people from various companies (like Netscape) that pay
> buckets of money to be part of the select few that get to make the
> decisions.
You can't seriously be equating "grassroots" with capitalism, can
you? Grassroots are lots of people on picket lines protesting some
action. Like the Vietnam war. It's a social activity, not one where
where big companies spend money to get something to happen. It's
AGAINST companies like that that grassroot organizations fight, and
protests are mounted. Mozilla is SUPPOSED to be based on a free, open
source, model: by the people, by the people. The fact that it needs
funding is a practical concession to its viability, and inherently at
odds with its expressed philosophy. I suppose that it's at least
refreshing, in some bizarre sense, that you're now openly admitting
that there a few people with the money and power (Netscape) who have
the power to foist a feature on us against our consent. But don't
presume to say that Netscape's "We want this feature, and screw you if
you don't." stance is grassroots - because it's not. It's the
opposite.
Jason.
