Thank you
Thank you
Posted May 15, 2003 5:51 UTC (Thu) by roskegg (subscriber, #105)In reply to: BEWARE! by Sharky
Parent article: Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine)
Thank you for the warning. I worked to mediate in good faith; I had to put up with Firebird users saying I was biased in favor of Mozilla (which was true), and now Mozilla users are saying I was biased against Mozilla, because I decided to call a spade a spade.
While I was working as a mediator, it was important to stay diplomatic. However that role ended for me almost a week ago when the Mozilla and Firebird developers finally got a channel of communication flowing.
My comments today were made as a private individual who knows that his job is done. Had Christopher Blizzard not given his silly interview, putting all the blame on Firebird and not admitting to the flaws of his own project, I wouldn't have said another word on the topic. I have principles and I try to stick by them. The highest principle is adherence to the truth. A movement or project built on falsehood has a shaky foundation, and will crash sooner than later.
Has anyone else noticed that since Phoenix was made the "official" Mozilla browser, it has started to take on the bloat and long startup times that were so problematic in the previous (Seamonkey) Mozilla browser?
Posted May 15, 2003 6:32 UTC (Thu)
by jamesh (guest, #1159)
[Link] (3 responses)
My comments today were made as a private individual who knows that his job is done. Your comments today cast doubt over the impartiality of your work as a mediator. Whether you were impartial in your mediation or not, they damage your image of being impartial. As an example, consider the Microsoft antitrust trial. Judge Jackson's press conference was enough to cast doubt on his impartiality which lead to the apeal.
Posted May 15, 2003 7:31 UTC (Thu)
by msutherland (guest, #11201)
[Link] (2 responses)
Maybe you missed more of his elaboration... "If I had no interest in the conflict, why would I have gotten involved in the first place? I was always very open and honest about my motives, and my bias. The fact that I am a daily user of Mozilla, and use Firebirds competitor Postgres, show that my biases are on the side of Mozilla. To call my efforts a "Trojan Horse" means nothing in real terms, but sure sounds gosh-darn sneaky and malicious. If you had something real to accuse me of, you would have. That you stoop to such slurs is another example of the dishonesty that is rampant among the Mozilla team. You never addressed the FACT that Asa handed down the naming decision as from on high, and had run it by the lawyers first without even talking to the Firebird team. And when they did complain, told them "We aren't changing, suck it up". This is the height of immaturity and arrogance. Insinuating things about my integrity doesn't change these FACTS. In the interests of smoothing things out and getting the problem resolved, I went to bat for the Mozilla team. I stayed silent and didn't correct the various news reporters that interviewed me when they showed they had the impression that Mr. Blizzards "Branding Statement" was just clearing up a big misunderstanding. There was NO misunderstanding; I and the Firebird team were just allowing you to save face in the hopes that you would start to play ball. But then Christopher Blizzards posts SHIT like the interview linked in this article, it becomes obvious that there is no desire of many on the Mozilla team to play ball. You think just because you are a big oil tanker in the Free Software movement, you can run over Firebirds little Free Software yacht, and experience no consequences. I am sorry, but the whole point of Free Software is that people are responsible for their actions, and sincerely want to put their morals and ethics into action. Mozilla has so far not done this."
Posted May 15, 2003 8:16 UTC (Thu)
by jamesh (guest, #1159)
[Link] (1 responses)
Going back to my analogy, was Judge Jackson prejudiced against Microsoft when he decided on the remedies in the Microsoft trial? I don't know. There was enough doubt that his remedies weren't used, and the appeal started. Johnathan offered to mediate as a neutral third party. His comments today make him look anything but neutral. Maybe the comments are based on some information from discussions and are well founded. If this is the case, then it would help if he could disclose some of this information to help corroborate his allegations. Without that, the comments come accross as biased.
Posted May 15, 2003 8:48 UTC (Thu)
by msutherland (guest, #11201)
[Link]
Going back to what Jonathan has posted... did you bother reading any of it?
Thank you
> Your comments today cast doubt over the impartiality of your work as a mediator. Whether you were impartial in your mediation or not, they damage your image of being impartial.Thank you
Thank you
> Going back to my analogyThank you