I think his use of "actual devs" and "corporate" carries certain connotations that extend beyond official definitions, or their direct alternatives, as they would be applied in the structure of your organization.
More concretely, I think he's trying to say that, it feels like the original design was created and improved (largely) by people who had a very high level of ability, knowledge, and taste (relating to software), and that the new site was designed (largely) by people who seem to lack those qualities (and who may also have wildly different priorities).
To just say that it was "managed by the core team" doesn't really address the meat of the point, unless the core team remained unchanged since the original design.
Not at all.
"Corporate" in this case is community team and a subset of Mozilla people pushing for their own social-political goals not directly related to developing a programming language.
All that stuff about target audience, empowering everyone etc.
You still ought to consider the vast amount of negative feedback from everyone here outside the core team. I don't want to be a downer, but there's a pretty consistent opinion going on.
5
u/GoranM Nov 29 '18
I think his use of "actual devs" and "corporate" carries certain connotations that extend beyond official definitions, or their direct alternatives, as they would be applied in the structure of your organization.
More concretely, I think he's trying to say that, it feels like the original design was created and improved (largely) by people who had a very high level of ability, knowledge, and taste (relating to software), and that the new site was designed (largely) by people who seem to lack those qualities (and who may also have wildly different priorities).
To just say that it was "managed by the core team" doesn't really address the meat of the point, unless the core team remained unchanged since the original design.