<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 11/2/2012 6:45 PM, Blake Winton wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:50947745.2030705@mozilla.com" type="cite">Which
kind of brings me to my main point. Aceman, protz, jcranmer,
rkent, do any of you actually want to be the module owners for
Thunderbird, or would you rather continue fixing things and
driving the direction of Thunderbird by doing the work you're
interested in.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The short answer is that I am not currently interested in taking on
a "module ownership" position and its responsibilities.<br>
<br>
Here's the longer answer.<br>
<br>
I want Thunderbird to be a career, not a hobby. I am not motivated
to spend lots of my free time donating my experience "so that
enterprises can have free software" (which is the phrase that
Mitchell Baker used in our conversation, describing why it does not
make sense for Mozilla to donate significant funds to Thunderbird.)
I don't really want to discourage those who are so motivated, yet
that is hard without being completely silent about my own
perspective. Still, I intend to spend about 10 hours per week on
public Thunderbird work, as my responsibility to "give back" to the
project, while I spend the bulk of my time on my own extension work.<br>
<br>
At this point, I am convinced that what is really needed is a rework
in direction for the mailnews client, allowing resources to be
devoted to 1) enterprise-friendly options and features, 2) better
compatibility with the mobile and web space, 3) fixing old bugs, and
4) expanded protocol capability beyond traditional IMAP. For that to
happen, the project management would need to really focus on
developing income, as we would need at least $1,000,000 per year to
make any real progress. This is not going to happen with an
all-volunteer project - nor should it happen that way, as "free (as
in beer) software for enterprises" is not a cause worthy of our
efforts.<br>
<br>
What is not clear is whether that is even possible given the current
market and product realities. JB is in the best position to know
this, and he really doubts it.<br>
<br>
But what <i>is</i> clear is that Mozilla (which also means
"Thunderbird") has no interest in this battle. 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. The culture is such that a minority of
people opposed to a focus on income generation would try to claim
the moral high ground, and derail the focus that would be needed.
This is not intended as a criticism of Mozilla, they have chosen
their direction, Thunderbird is not it, and they don't want to risk
any problems in their other projects by being forced to resolve
basic values conflicts over Thunderbird's direction. It's safer to
just accept the status quo, even though that does not lead to a
vibrant future for Thunderbird.<br>
<br>
So making progress, IMHO, would have to be done with a different
trademark that would protect Mozilla from the issues. (Two years
ago, I even the reserved the name "SwanFox" as a potential name for
such an alternate trademark.) But that removes the possibility of
generating income in the short term, which is tied to the
Thunderbird brand. A fork is not the answer, PostBox tried that and
by my analysis is struggling right now. Instead, you would want to
"wrap" Thunderbird with alternate packaging, support, and
extensions, preserving compatibility with all of the previous and
future Thunderbird work and extensions. You also need to maintain a
sense of cooperation between the alternate brand and Thunderbird,
avoiding any appearance of an unfriendly split or coup. None of this
is easy.<br>
<br>
So that is where I am at. Personally I am content with my current
direction, which is focusing my energies on developing the Exchange
Web Services capabilities for email, while putting in my fair share
to make sure that Thunderbird lives. So far, Thunderbird 18 and 19
seem to be going just fine, which is encouraging. Yet I still have
this lingering sense that there is a missed opportunity here to
develop a serious player in the communications client market using
the Mozilla base code. Perhaps if we had 10 people seriously
interested in pursuing this, then we could make progress.<br>
<br>
:rkent<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>