That's posted on mozilla.org, not mozilla.com tho. There's a fine balance between the two.

There's currently no meaningful distinction between the two domains. mozilla.org is the standard domain for all mozilla sites (developer.mozilla.org, addons.mozilla.org, or, in this case, blog.mozilla.org). I think we maybe use mozilla.com for a handful of internal things.

The corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the non-profit, so the .org domain isn't necessarily a misrepresentation, either.

The argument for being corporate cant go both way tho.

What matters is how public perceives this, too. Posting corp stuff on the org domain/site means that then they are fully corporate-like. Which maybe is simply the case.

You can't justify that its not the case because Mofo owns Moco.. then say both Moco and Mofo share everything without implying its all just a corp. (or the opposite, but not both).

All I was trying to clear up was that mozilla.org is our standard domain regardless of what's being posted, and thus there was no conscious decision to put "corporate speak" on a .org domain. I dunno exactly why this decision was made, but I'm almost certain having .com and .org both in active use would be really confusing for users (is it addons.mozilla.com? addons.mozilla.org?) and, to a lesser extent, our ops and developers.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the tone of this post is too corporate for a .org and is a bad choice if we want to imply that Mozilla isn't just some for-profit company (which we don't, we like talking about how we're non-profit and open source and mission-driven).

Honestly I don't think anyone cares. We'd get the same trouble for posting corporate speak on a .com vs a .org because by the time you care about that, you already know enough about Mozilla to be bothered regardless of the domain.

I don't really think the problem is that "it's a .org" domain. But this is posted in what's essentially a place where a lot of people who understand why "positive growth" is not only wrong, but a load of brainwashed crap, spend quite some time :).

Phrases like those belong in press releases, not a blog post from an organization intelligent people respect.

> a lot of people who understand why "positive growth" is not only wrong, but a load of brainwashed crap

I mean it's sort've a redundant term, but in context (positive growth of Firefox users, something that has been falling for a while now) it makes perfect sense to me. What did you think he was saying?

> I mean it's sort've a redundant term

Sort of a meaningless term?

How about we replace it with "negative decrease"?

Mozilla.com redirects to Mozilla.org. Mozilla have the dual structure, but when it comes to their web presence, I don't think they are making too much of a distinction.

Which one employs the people who ship the browser?

Mozilla is a nonprofit organization. Governance comes from there.

The Mozilla Corporation employs most people working on Firefox, and is controlled by the nonprofit. It pays taxes and salaries and so forth, but all of its goals are driven by the nonprofit.

It's similar to nonprofit hospitals and similar things, again where there is a nonprofit that controls a for-profit entity (as hospitals need to employ people, pay taxes, etc., like a normal business).

> "achieved positive growth" is pretty self-explanatory.

Sure, but it's Corporatese for "grew".

Thanks for acting as a translator.

One of them should change their name then. It's confusing and starts to feel like a good cop, bad cop routine.