<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dear Thunderbird community,</p>
<p>I would like to make a plea for cooperation within this project.
That we all work together to a common goal.</p>
<p>As the goal, I would define:<br>
</p>
<p>a) Thunderbird serves its end users well, and works in the way
they like it, and <br>
b) the project is a rewarding place for people who want to
actively contribute to goal a).</p>
<p>As community, I consider everybody in b).</p>
<p>To achieve that, it is important that we all listen to each
other, and respect each other's needs. If end users have certain
pain points, we need to actively find out what they are, and find
solutions for them. We should actively interview random end users
and ask them where they need improvements. If they have certain
needs, we should fulfill them.</p>
<p>If community members say that they have a certain need, we should
fulfill that need, or at least allow them to fulfill that
themselves, without putting them roadblocks in the way. It doesn't
mean that we do the proposed solution. There are often different
solutions to a given problem or need. We should discuss it
together, rationally and with the goal of finding the best
solution the objective problem. It may also that they need to
contribute the solution themselves. But we need to allow them to
"scratch their itch".</p>
<p>This kind of listening to each other has been completely lost
here. Not only here, but in many places around the world. But I am
convinced that it's the only way to make actual progress, instead
of being between torn between A and B, where none of them fulfill
my needs. That's what commercial software does. "This is it. Like
it, buy it. Don't like it, buy something else.", just that none
them does all that I need. This is where Open Source shines. If a
software is 90% of the day, but lacks something important, I can
add it. This kind of polishing is the very thing that makes Open
Source shine and makes it so useful. This is why Open Source has
won over the entire computing infrastructure, from watches and
routers to supercomputers and the cloud. If Linus Torvalds had
said "No, that's not our goal, we want a desktop OS", then Linux
would never have been successful, and the computing world would
look very different today. It's the people who contribute and make
the software what they need, which is what makes it ultimately
useful to end users. Not some manifesto and business plan. But
people who scratch their itches.</p>
<p>We need to listen to them. Without listening to them, we forgoe
the entire usefulness and purposef Open Source. I make the
distinction between "Open Source software", which is software with
an Open Source license, and "Open Source project", which is open
to contributors from all over the Internet, and allows all of them
to scratch their itch. And they are being listened to. There are
plenty of "Open Source software", which are of no use to me. If MS
Outlook for Windows was put until a MIT license today, would it be
any better? Not much.<br>
</p>
<p>What do we want Thunderbird to be?</p>
<p>Do we want Thunderbird to be driven by a company, and employees
of that company, and by the directions that the managers of that
company? And the TB Council appoints these managers for x years?
And the managers hire the employees, and direct these employees.
How much influence would the community still have in such a
structure? If the managers or employees make a decision and decide
not to listen the community, how would the community even be able
to stop it before it's all too late?<br>
</p>
<p>Or do we want Thunderbird to be community driven? Do we want the
ideas and insight and patches to come from all over the Internet,
from anybody who cares and wants to contribute constructively to a
solution?</p>
<p>Here's my idea of "listening to the community":</p>
<ol>
<li>If there's a decision to be made, the TB Council posts the
problem statement on tb-planning. (FWIW, the mailing list is
called tb-planning for a reason: it's supposed to be the place
where the plans for the future TB are discussed and made)</li>
<li>The TB community discusses about it. People suggest ideas,
share insights about pros and cons of various solutions, based
on their experience (we all have different experiences and
multiple viewpoints help to make wiser decisions, see my
description of closed source vs. Open Source projects above),
and they build on each other's ideas. An idea from somebody else
gives me another idea, and so on.<br>
<ul>
<li>The discussions MUST be civil, not attacking other
people's point of views, but accepting the needs of others
as a given. It must be rational and constructive in nature.
The idea is to find the best solution together, not to shoot
each other's ideas and viewpoints down.</li>
<li>If everybody does that, and consider each other's points,
hopefully a solution will emerge that consider's everybody's
needs. And this precisely is where we will be superior to
closed source software.<br>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>After a certain time (e.g. 1-2 weeks, the TB Council reviews
the discussion, and decides based on the discussion, considering
the arguments proposed. The most reasonable solution should be
chosen that best serves the goal as defined at the top.</li>
<li>The TB company / MZLA Tech Inc employees then go and implement
that solution, or a contributor/volunteer is permitted to
implement it.</li>
</ol>
<p>Of course, this is a process for big decisions, or any decision
that the community cares about, not small questions.</p>
<p>So, the TB Council makes the decisions, but based on the
community input. This is a community-driven process.</p>
<p>I have been calling for transparency since years. Because without
knowing what is being discussed right now, the community does not
even have any chance to weight in or contribute ideas or insight.
Instead, the community is *systematically* locked out. Knowing
what's going on is the very first step in any useful contribution.
But the rest of the decision making process also needs to be open.<br>
</p>
<p>I would like to see Thunderbird be a project where everybody's
contribution is welcome, whether volunteer or staff, whether
Council member or some guy in new Zealand with a notebook and some
good ideas or insight.</p>
<p>This is the value of Open Source projects. That the decisions are
made by - and consider the needs - of many people.</p>
<p>Please, let's start <b>listening to each other</b>, and respect
each others needs.<br>
And please, let's <b>structure</b> the project and its <b>decision
making</b> paths so that it will inherently listen.</p>
<p>Ben Bucksch<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>