code name for Thunderbird 3.2

Kent James kent at caspia.com
Sat Jun 19 06:40:58 UTC 2010


  I probably should not have responded so forcefully to what was really 
a request for comments on a name. I really have no opinion about the 
name, so I probably should not have responded. I'll try to simply answer 
your questions without raising anything new. I probably won't reply any 
more on this subject in the interest of not cluttering this list.

On 6/18/2010 5:11 PM, Dan Mosedale wrote:
>  On 6/18/10 4:20 PM, Kent James wrote:
>>  On 6/18/2010 4:01 PM, Dan Mosedale wrote:
>>> fundraising for the gulf
>> I hate to be a killjoy here, but let's put this in perspective. The 
>> 20 billion dollars that BP has recently committed to this effort, if 
>> this was used to fund a private foundation, would make it the fourth 
>> largest private foundation in the world 
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_charitable_foundations). 
>> There is no way that any effort that Mozilla can put forward on this 
>> can have any impact at all on the problem.
> If I'm understanding you correctly, the objection you're raising is 
> that because there are already significant amounts of money involved 
> and the problem hasn't yet been solved, that the marginal value of 
> additional amounts of money will have literally no impact on the 
> problem.  Is that right?
I responded specifically to the issue of fundraising. Fundraising 
implies that the solution to the problem at hand is at least partly 
money. My point was more that unprecedented amounts of money (at least 
from a non-profit perspective) are already being poured into this 
problem, and nobody thinks that is going to "solve" the problem. So 
whatever the problem is, money is not really the main marginal need at 
the moment, so I do not see the point of fund raising in the non-profit 
sector for this.
>
>> The only justification that I could see for investing effort there is 
>> that it is trendy.
> The word "trendy" has a bunch of negative connotations that I'm not 
> convinced apply to this situation.
I will confess that "trendy" and "sinkhole" are loaded terms that really 
have no place in this discussion, so I should not have used them.
>   If I reframe that into the following question: "Is one of the 
> justifications for investing effort here because a significant number 
> of people are seeing the effects of the problem and have expressed a 
> desire to help?", I would answer that question with a "yes".   Does 
> that help?
It helps me understand why you want to be involved. It is not a 
justification that I would use personally.
>> There are many, many  worthy causes in the world. I would really hate 
>> to see effort go toward "encouraging" people to donate their precious 
>> money to this sinkhole, which will do virtually no good there 
>> compared to the other places that you might put effort.
> By using the phrase "this sinkhole", I suspect you're trying to 
> communicate that it's not at all clear exactly what the right way 
> forward in the Gulf is, nor is it clear exactly in what way specific 
> donations are going to help.  Is that inference correct?
That is a correct inference. I have some pretty strong opinions about 
the responsibility of donors to understand issues before acting, but 
those would best be discussed in some other venue.

rkent



More information about the tb-planning mailing list