| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ron Hunter <rphunter> wrote: > I agree that it probably isn't something that should be published for > the general public which doesn't understand what the Mozilla idea of > a 'bug' is. Most people think of that as something that is going to > cause everyone to lose data, or the program to crash disastrously. > Bad PR. The info came from a meeting summary; publishing those summaries is one of the aspects of keeping the project open to scrutiny. IMO, there's more to be gained than lost by trying to making things as open as possible. In the tech press, there are quite a few writers who either don't understand what they write about or who deliberately portray innocuous information as scandalous in order to draw eyes to their pages. PR-wise, I think Mozilla folks are handling that fairly well, by blogging with corrections and clarification and by contacting the writers directly. If they could convince these writers to contact them first, /before/ publishing inflammatory stories, that'd be great. (It'd also be standard practice for journalists.) But I think those writers don't mind being corrected after the fact -- it leads to followup columns, which means more page hits. [crossposted with followup set to mozilla.general. I don't think this is much off-topic here, but it's not a support issue, and it is more generally a Mozilla issue.] _______________________________________________ general mailing list general https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2004-2008 readlist.com