pep financing proposal

Tony Mechelynck antoine.mechelynck at
Fri Dec 4 07:38:43 UTC 2015

Maybe some (many?) of us would have preferred everything to happen in
the open where we could have followed it like a TV serial from day 0.
But that kind of openness is not always possible. If you know
corporate CEOs and their PR managers, they don't like the press (and
therefore the competition) to know in advance the details of the
agreements which they are negotiating, and if they had known that
Thunderbird would, by policy, let the whole negotiation happen out in
the open, there would have been no negotiation at all; instead, the
deal would have been: “Sorry, but not from us; get your sponsoring
elsewhere”, full stop. They would have regarded open negotiation as
inviting overbids and outbids by the competition, and they are not
ready to offer, at the start, enough of their “hardly won corporate
money” to outbid any possible aftercomer for the same advert space.

Best regards,

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Volker Birk <vb at> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 01:06:56PM -0600, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
>> I will say that if you were to only hear the other half,
>> you would think that pEp were conducting a bait-and-switch operation to
>> hijack control of the Thunderbird project.
> Probably email is a bad medium to discuss if emotions are in place. But
> please think about what you're telling here!
> In my view, there is way too much discussion “behind the curtain”. I
> would like to put things openly on the table, because I cannot see why
> not. If I may suggest something for Thunderbird council, it will be a
> public mail archive, and published minutes. For a community project this
> is very unusual not to know anything what's going on.
> p≡p's interest in Thunderbird is clear, and I made it clear from the
> first day:
> 1) Thunderbird has to survive. And to make this cristal clear: this is
>    not the case yet, that we have this situation already. This is why
>    p≡p set up a project to find financing to save Thunderbird. I'm still
>    wondering why this is being seen as an attack?!
> 2) Thunderbird has to find a sustainable future. The idea to make a
>    transitional project for analyzing what could be the best way to do
>    this did not sound totally stupid to me. The opposite is true, I'm
>    very happy that this is the come-out of our discussion with Mark
>    Surman. To repeat that: Mozilla would be in.
> 3) p≡p has the slogan: “Privacy by Default”. If we make statements to
>    the public, please expect us being serious about them. To call this
>    “bait-and-switch operation to hijack control” when we want to deal
>    out – surprise, surprise: Privacy by Default, makes me raising my
>    eyebrows and shaking my head. Seriously?! I'm very desolate about the
>    positioning here what we want to add: because being a crypto app
>    itself would really help Thunderbird to have a new advantage over
>    competing solutions. Why is that seen only as disadvantage? We have
>    2015, crypto is a big thing, and Enigmail/p≡p will add lots of value
>    to the project, independently from the money being put on the table.
> pretty Easy privacy is about making Privacy the Default. This – and a
> long term user experience inside the crypto community including crypto
> parties make us wanting to save Thunderbird.
> Is that really so hard to understand?
> Yours,
> VB.
> --
> Volker Birk, p≡p project
> mailto:vb at
> --
> Volker Birk, p≡p project
> mailto:vb at
> _______________________________________________
> tb-planning mailing list
> tb-planning at

More information about the tb-planning mailing list