Doug Ludy wrote:
> life-enhancing rather that life-threatening? This is a very old
> dilemma. I sincerely hope this discussion continues, for trust is
> important to me.
But how can you trust a process going on behind closed door and
excluding everyone else?
Further more how can you trust it w
Gervase Markham wrote:
Amir Herzberg wrote:
> It is not an issue of fairness, it is an issue of open process. I am
> indeed disappointed to find that Mozilla is not acting openly. As a
> believer in open process, I am concerned that the result may be
> suboptimal.
I would like the process to be
Amir Herzberg wrote:
> It is not an issue of fairness, it is an issue of open process. I am
> indeed disappointed to find that Mozilla is not acting openly. As a
> believer in open process, I am concerned that the result may be
> suboptimal.
I would like the process to be more open. I hope and ex
Gervase Markham wrote:
> Ian Grigg wrote:
>
>>> This is clearly not the case - in partnership with the other browser
>>> vendors, we are together working out the most appropriate UI and then
>>> all implementing it.
That's fine, but of course not currently an open process.
Duane kindly setup an
Gervase Markham wrote:
Ian Grigg wrote:
This is clearly not the case - in partnership with the other browser
vendors, we are together working out the most appropriate UI and then
all implementing it.
That's fine, but of course not currently an open process. Duane kindly
setup an open forum
