Governance and Release Model updates

Jb Piacentino jb at
Tue Nov 13 14:17:10 UTC 2012

Ok. This I understand and agree with.

On 13/11/12 15:13, Blake Winton wrote:
> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> tb-planning mailing list
>> tb-planning at
> -- 
> Blake Winton   UX Engineer
> bwinton at
> _______________________________________________
> tb-planning mailing list
> tb-planning at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4447 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <>

More information about the tb-planning mailing list