find bar location and UX/Product oversight/review
Mike de Boer
mdeboer at mozilla.com
Mon Jul 29 22:37:16 UTC 2013
On Jul 29, 2013, at 11:46 PM, Mike Connor <mconnor at mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 2013-07-29, at 4:53 PM, Justin Dolske <dolske at mozilla.com> wrote:
>> On 7/29/13 8:02 AM, Mike Connor wrote:
>>> [...] my concern is about how we make major user-facing
>>> changes in a way that is transparent and open to constructive
>> That's a fine issue to discuss. I think there's plenty of room for improvement, and I have further thoughts and concerns on that matter.
>> But I think this would have been a much better discussion without the bullshit surrounding that point, taking a developer to task for writing it without UX input (which isn't true) and appealing to a process that is often loosely adhered to. It sure seems like you just don't like the change, and are trying to make a major issue out of a single bug.
> I think everything in this paragraph is asserting bad faith and dishonesty, which is honestly pretty upsetting, but I'll try to reply factually and fairly.
> To repeat what I said in the original post: I am ambivalent about the change, albeit unhappy with the obvious jank it introduced. If I wanted to argue about the change, I'd argue about the change.
> As for "taking a developer to task", I intentionally did not assert that the developer did that, I said it looked on the surface like that, but after enough digging it appears there were indeed discussions that didn't get reflected in any bug/post/thread. I was trying to highlight that while the optics were suboptimal, the reality was just a process foul. This is why I raised questions about how we make sure we're being open about discussions and rationale leading to significant changes.
> If this was just a case of a developer overstepping, I wouldn't call them out, especially indirectly, on a public list. That's not my style, and was not my intention. If Mike took it that way, I can only apologize and ask forgiveness for any offence caused.
Don't worry, I wasn't offended at all. To be honest, my first reaction was more along the lines of "Oh noooos, mconnor says we did it wrong and now we have to pull it out!", which is a simple emotion I was able to discard when I read between the lines (see below).
>> To put things into perspective: this is a almost-trivial change to move a piece of UI. The bug you linked you was to either fix it, back it out, or live with it. And now it's got a bunch of suggestions for fixing it, and a well-along patch that does so. Success. (And if not, we'll simply back it out and consider it again when/if there is a solution.) That's a fine use of Nightly.
> Perspective is subjective, of course. It's a small code change that has a large visual change, both in where to look for the UI and how invocation shifts content, and I would expect that it's the type of change that we make intentionally with sound reasoning. If we have that reasoning, I don't think it's asking for a lot to make sure that's there for others to be able to understand the change.
>> The stop-energy threads like this create are profoundly disappointing.
> I don't know how we can move forward as an open project without having frank and open discussions about the appearance of negative trends in how we work as a project. Making disruptive changes without providing the rationale in the bug feels like a mistake we should learn from and not repeat as a team, which is why I felt like it was a discussion we should have on this list.
Sometimes it takes a couple of iterations until everybody gets on the same page, groks the intent and strike the real issue at its heart (this might just be a Dutchism, please forgive me). It's a matter of words, English and some more coffee. I think you did that here and I, too, am keen to hear suggestions to improve communication in the near future.
> -- Mike
 Find more hilarious examples at https://www.facebook.com/Dutchisms and strange stuff we do at http://stuffdutchpeoplelike.com/complete-list/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4139 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the firefox-dev