Governance and Release Model updates

Blake Winton bwinton at mozilla.com
Tue Nov 13 14:13:54 UTC 2012


I think having a not-Mozilla organization dedicated to enhancing Mozilla 
Thunderbird could work out well.  They wouldn't be responsible for 
releasing it, but I see no problem with them (say) charging money to 
support it in enterprises.  (Or, maybe we could look into a model like 
the "Microsoft Solution Providers", where other people build businesses 
around the Thunderbird codebase?)

Later,
Blake.

On 13-11-12 6:21 , Jb Piacentino wrote:
> 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:
>>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tb-planning mailing list
> tb-planning at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning


-- 
Blake Winton   UX Engineer
bwinton at mozilla.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/tb-planning/attachments/20121113/a41bbd8c/attachment.html>


More information about the tb-planning mailing list