Where MDN used to excel and for now still does, reference documentation, is also showing cracks, due to the recent changes at Mozilla. 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
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?
Or plug one of the many royalty-free photo sites like Unsplash or Pexels (and comes with the bonus of teaching people to consider copyrights when you publish a site).
Hopefully we can fix this via contribution.
Not seeing them as a major contributor.
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.
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.”
I am not involved enough to know what kind of changes or politics are responsible, but I sure hope it reverses.