> A long time contributor gave up. https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/36294

Reading through that issue MDN was almost definitely in the right. Also calling them a long time contributor might be a bit off, from what I can see they did one typofix and added one link: https://github.com/mdn/content/commits?author=WebReflection

> It starts out with loading a font from Google Fonts.

Besides the steps order... My first impression is that it's taking someone who knows nothing, and conditioning them from step 1 to not even think about compromising a privacy-respecting, free and open Internet. Your First Third-Party Tracker. Your First Gratuitous Third-Party Dependency.

A couple times they hit on copyright and licensing, however. Which I approve of, but is also a corporate-friendly thing to emphasize.

Another one:

> To choose an image, go to [Google Images](https://www.google.com/imghp) and search for something suitable.

If you have to name and link a search engine for the exercise, how about not endorsing a famously privacy-invading option, but instead have the student use a more privacy-respecting one?

I have zero outside context on that pr but judging it purely by the actual written text in the comments it seems the mdn maintainer was bring far more mature than the contributor who ended up quitting. They both mention a lot of background in the comments themselves; what information is missing which would make the contributor seem more sympathetic? As matters stand, this doesn’t appear as a loss for mdn.

MDN does just excel at documentation. It is the ONLY place where one can learn modern web development from scratch without a hidden agenda. Everyone else is either pushing their framework or their online courses platform or their own browser ecosystem.

I'm amazed that adults act like this in a professional setting. As soon as the issue creator asked if the maintainer has made any of their own polyfills, it sounds like it turned into a personal attack. I'd say the issue poster should be banned from contributing starting from that point, and I'm surprised he was allowed to keep posting.

Honestly, I think the MDN team is in the right here.

The author of the PR provided almost no explanation for the addition and left the template essentially blank. Then the team provided a detailed explanation of a very reasonable policy, to which the PR author responded with what frankly reads like a temper tantrum.

Especially after the xz incident, maintainers should be very very wary of contributors who use manipulative techniques to try to get things merged against policy, and contributors who are trying to help in good faith should be patient and understanding when they hit those barriers.

I just see a guy ranting for days because his contribution was rejected. Not sure what point that link is supposed to make.

The link I’m reading (the one you sent) starts with planning, not font loading?

The second link seems very irrelevant, but makes Mozilla look good. The long time contributor in that thread is giving a showcase on how not to behave in open-source. Props to Mozilla for not giving into the manipulative bully-play-victim contributor:

Comment of his, for reference: “Once again, if this was the reason for rejection I would've been way happier (it's 3LOC extra) to react to that reasoning, but I am fully sure right now even if I bring "secured" (it's a race condition in the real-world) call and apply to the ponyfill you'll find other awkward and antitrust conflicting arguments to nuke my link ... can you confirm? If yes is the answer, once again, me and you have very different meaning around working to push the Web forward (and it's sad you work for Mozilla, I don't), if no is the answer, I'll publish a fix ASAP and you should re-consider closing both PRs around this topic.

It's your call.”

The author of that pr is acting like a spoilt child. I would reject his contributions on principle alone.

The behavior of the said "long time contributor" (I didn't bother checking whether they actually contributed) is very questionable.

It is really disappointing how much of the previous feeling of open source ethos seems to disappear every time Mozilla updates anything over the last few years.

I am not involved enough to know what kind of changes or politics are responsible, but I sure hope it reverses.

[flagged]

Ah, yes. With `<font size="1" color="red">` and `<bgsound>` you're pretty much ready to be a webmaster!

It's only missing a section on how to add a guestbook and visitor counter.

Wow, Neopets is what got me into web dev. I didn't know they had their own guides!

I‘m getting a redirect to some „Help Center“

My first venture in programming was typing out HTML in notepad and refreshing Internet explorer. No CSS files, No JS (altough I found a book on Javascript 1.6 later). Just one single file. Later I found about shared hosting and cPanel and this was more than enough to get something out in the real world.

I wish Mozilla wouldn't break what is already fixed. I think the original MDN format and order is better than this. Most of the best content is already on MDN and they should keep developing and improving that.

I looked into the core js author's story and there's nothing off about him to me. He just played a role in the post-install messages being curtailed. https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v9/commands/npm-fund?v=true As for that other thing, this puts it well: "I won't get into details - no one knows the full story - so I let you make your own opinion". https://www.izoukhai.com/blog/the-sad-story-of-denis-pushkar... I read the story (the link in that post is old) and I ended up giving him the benefit of the doubt. https://github.com/zloirock/core-js/blob/master/docs/2023-02... Also in that post is that Babel didn't fork it. That's another thing to take into account when making your own opinion.

[flagged]