<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
This decision is a clear loss, if not even violation, of most
principles in the manifesto (which happen to capture the Mozilla
spirit fairly well):<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto.en.html">http://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto.en.html</a><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<ol>
<li>The Internet is an integral part of modern life–a key
component
in education, communication, collaboration, business,
entertainment
and society as a whole.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<br>
All true for "Email is an ...", and email is a core part of
"Internet"<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<ol>
<li>The Internet is a global public resource that must remain
open and
accessible.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<br>
Webmail is definitely not open. You're totally dependent on the
features and limitations the provider offers.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<ol>
<li>The Internet should enrich the lives of individual human
beings.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<br>
Being reduced to webmail as choice surely isn't an enrichment for
individuals, only an enrichment for Google.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<ol>
<li>Individuals' security on the Internet is fundamental and
cannot be
treated as optional.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<br>
Privacy goes out the door with webmail.<br>
Even integrity: The ISP can even alter the message contents years
after the fact, and I have no way to verify or prove this. (see e.g.
scandals)<br>
<br>
If everybody has webmail, there's not even a reason for the ISP to
offer IMAP or POP3.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<ol>
<li>Individuals must have the ability to shape their own
experiences
on the Internet.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<br>
Most definitely a loss here. This is one of the reasons that get at
me most with this decision.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<ol>
<li>The effectiveness of the Internet as a public resource
depends
upon interoperability (protocols, data formats, content),
innovation
and decentralized participation worldwide.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<br>
~20% of the world's users (and raising quickly) all being on gmail
is a scary centralization. With centralization, no need for
interoperability - old story.<br>
<br>
Where do you think Thunderbird users will go now? Eudora? No, Gmail.
Definitely loss here.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<ol>
<li>Free and open source software promotes the development of
the
Internet as a public resource.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<br>
I can't modify gmail webmail.<br>
<br>
Even in the remote chance that we would build the world leading
webmail software, it would still be the ISP rolling out and
controlling it, and probably modifying it.<br>
<br>
Loss.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<ol>
<li>Transparent community-based processes promote participation,
accountability, and trust.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<br>
Transparency in this decision? Participation? None. We were merely
*informed* many months after this has been decided, a week before
the public release. Perfect way to destroy all remaining trust I
had.<br>
<br>
(As for the press leakage, I think that was Mozillians, not one of
the contributors.)<br>
<br>
This isn't HP here.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<ol>
<li>Commercial involvement in the development of the Internet
brings
many benefits; a balance between commercial goals and public
benefit
is critical.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<br>
Gain. This decision surely helps commerce.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<ol>
<li>Magnifying the public benefit aspects of the Internet is an
important goal, worthy of time, attention and commitment.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<br>
-<br>
</body>
</html>