MDN Plus

The only thing missing from this announce is the promise that all proceeds go to MDN and nowhere else, like subsidizing a failing product or paying C-suite bonuses.

Ring fencing funds could be a real issue for Mozilla. They desperately need new revenue streams to support their primary product (the Firefox browser) since it's non- revenue earning. I wouldn't mind these funds going towards Firefox, or even other products woth a little reluctance, but agree they shouldn't go towards other costs like bonuses or "operation costs".

You know that won't happen and it's a no-go for me, too. I'd love to support individual projects, but there's no way to do so, sadly.

It's a wiki (at least it used to be). A lot of people, including me, spent a lot of time and effort building up the content on the site. Not for nothing—I got an intercontinental flight, a stay in a nice hotel, and a conference ticket in a new city—but many of the people who made the developer.mozilla.org content what it is are never going to see any of that money. The MDN staff, though, some of whom are almost certainly overcompensated despite project mismanagement and dubious choices on par with the judgment of Mozilla leadership itself, definitely will see some non-zero amount appear in their bank account every pay period.

For outsiders to show up with such strong opinions like yours, it feels... weird, at the very least.

Where in the world did you get these ideas?

> They desperately need new revenue streams to support their primary product (the Firefox browser)

No, they don't. The Corporation receives almost half a billion USD annually—over 2.5x what they were bringing in 10 years ago (when they were supporting 20+% of the world's Web browsing; for comparison, they're now at <5%). And whatever they make from MDN Plus, it likely won't even be half of what they flush down the toilet on the marketing department every year.

> since it's non- revenue earning

What? There's a reason why Firefox is Mozilla Corp's primary focus, you know—because it's one of the few things that does pay for itself (and then some—most of Mozilla's adventures are funded by revenue tied to Firefox).

"They desperately need new revenue streams to support their primary product (the Firefox browser) since it's non- revenue earning."

Isn't Firefox by far the largest revenue earning product they have? It currently generates revenue of $400-450 million a year through the sale of the default search engine within the browser.

Much of that is from Google. It makes sense to replace that and reduce that dependency on a single instance.

> I've noticed that moving the goalposts is extremely prevalent on HN, which makes for pretty frustrating conversations (or just reading). And then sometimes it's a tag team. E.g. [...] Personal A offers their response [to someone else, person B1]. Person B2 offers a second rebuttal that abandons the premise behind B1's rebuttal, and may actually be at odds with it.[...] It's like the cross product of a Gish gallop and a DDoS.

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23117242>

The comment I wrote was a response to someone who staked their claim on the controvertible assertion that Mozilla "desperately" needs money as a result of Firefox being "non- revenue earning". (Not just being unable to cover the costs for their own existence, but straight up bringing no revenue whatsoever.) That's completely at odds with reality.

You can try to avoid the extant thread of discussion by mentioning something else that's true but irrelevant. At that point, however, it's a completely different conversation. Please don't do this.

Mozilla's not a cult. The users of their products are not outsiders. Having someone who worked their frame it like that really illuminates the current vibe I get from Mozilla.

I contributed without being MDN staff (which pretty much didn't even exist at the time)—that's sort of the whole point of my comment:

1. Mozilla sets up a wiki.

2. Contributors from the community work the content.

3. Paid Mozilla staff handle the infrastructure and, for better or worse, issue fatwas about high-level project direction—and, to be fair, write and edit some content, too (also for better or worse).

4. Years later, Mozilla starts a subscription service.

5. People not otherwise in-the-know show up and make weird proclamations about promises they want to be made about how/where money gets spent—with nary an indication that they understand how the content that they value actually came to exist.**

If you think my characterization of people from #5 as "outsiders" is off—(to the point of making low-effort, sanctimonious quips in defense of the fanclub's honor*)—then I don't know what to tell you except that we clearly have a different set of ideals. Whatever the case, addressing me as "someone who worked their" indicates not just that you missed the point entirely, but that you're very confused about the basic facts that form the premise of the discussion.

* this is in the middle of a discussion about a failure to acknowledge the existence of people who are actually responsible for the thing that they're fans of, no less

** see also "Who Writes Wikipedia?" (2006) <http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia>

If you're interested in solely contributing to the documentation rather than Mozilla, perhaps consider a donation to Open Web Docs?

"Open Web Docs receives donations from companies like Google, Microsoft, Meta, Coil and others, and from private individuals. These donations pay for Technical Writing staff and help finance Open Web Docs projects. None of the donations that Open Web Docs receive go to MDN or Mozilla; rather they pay for a team of writers to contribute to MDN."

via https://hacks.mozilla.org/2022/03/mozilla-and-open-web-docs-...

Ah, well either way, youre a hero for contributing to such a great resource.

Are you arguing Mozilla shouldn't add paid subscription, or you're just expressing grief that you as a contributor won't see that money?

You can get into MDN team and get "overcompensated" too. There must be plenty of budget after recent layoffs, right?

Neither. I'm responding to your comment.