Governance and Release Model updates

Jb Piacentino jb at mozilla.com
Tue Nov 13 11:21:01 UTC 2012


Kent,

"We need a not-Mozilla organization"... but you still want to be able to 
enjoy the 'Mozilla Thunderbird' brand? Can you please explain how you 
see this happening?

Jb
On 12/11/12 18:28, Kent James wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 2:35 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>>>>> For Thunderbird to even attempt this
>>>>> direction would have significant risk and controversy, and that is
>>>>> exactly the last thing that Mozilla wants for Thunderbird right now.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's a political reality that they will need to be
>>>> organizationally independent of Mozilla-the-organization.
>>>
>>> I'm so glad to hear you say that. It's been difficult to talk about
>>> possible alternate governance of a future Mozilla-based communications
>>> client without being viewed as anti-Mozilla, or trying some sort of 
>>> coup.
>>
>> I don't want to be misunderstood; I was saying that if an 
>> organization wants to go out and *raise funds for employing people* 
>> to develop the codebase, I think it would need to be not-Mozilla. But 
>> then I point out that Postbox tried something like this, and don't 
>> seem to have done all that well. So I wonder whether it would work.
>>
>> However, I'm not saying that I'm in favour of moving Thunderbird the 
>> product and brand out from the Mozilla umbrella. 
> Note that I used the phrase "future Mozilla-based communications 
> client" and not "Thunderbird".
>
> I've pretty much accepted that Mozilla for the foreseeable future is 
> not going to participate in any activity where Mozilla is managing 
> activities to pay for future innovation in a communications client 
> based on the Thunderbird code.
>
> If that is the practical reality, then the best thing that you could 
> do would be to continue to confirm that position. The worst thing that 
> Mozilla could do would be to encourage continued discussion under the 
> "Mozilla umbrella" about the issue, thus sucking strength away from 
> the not-Mozilla entity without really providing a valid outlet for 
> real discussions that have a chance of changing something. (This is 
> not an accusation that you have done such a thing, only an 
> encouragement to be clear about what Mozilla is *not* going to do, so 
> that others would have the freedom to do it.)
>
> So when Vincent writes "about monetization, just wanted to highlight 
> the fact that, in my opinion, there is still a lot to do" you would 
> say "fine, but that is out of scope for Mozilla, please discuss this 
> with the not-Mozilla entity".
>
> Unless I hear a strong statement otherwise, I am going to consider 
> Standard8's "Therefore, paid-for development should not be considered" 
> and your "efforts surrounding Thunderbird which generate income ... 
> will need to be organizationally independent of 
> Mozilla-the-organization " as definitive. We need a not-Mozilla 
> organization.
>
> :rkent
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tb-planning mailing list
> tb-planning at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/tb-planning/attachments/20121113/f68c8da0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4447 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/tb-planning/attachments/20121113/f68c8da0/attachment.p7s>


More information about the tb-planning mailing list