Andrew Overholt wrote: > On 25/06/13 10:11 AM, Brian Smith wrote: > > In the document, instead of creating a blacklist of web technologies to > > which the new policy would not apply (CSS, WebGL, WebRTC, etc.), please > > list the modules to which the policy would apply. > > I started building up a list of modules to which the policy would apply > but it grew quickly and there are a lot of modules in Core.
There is an easy way to build this list. When a module owner agrees to change the decision making process for his/her module to incorporate the policy, he/she can add his module to the list himself. > How do you feel about refining the definition of "web-exposed feature" > and then saying it applies to all modules but the module owner has veto > power for applicability? Module owners choose how to make decisions in their modules, though they can be overridden by Brendan. I **highly** recommend that you re-read this: http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/module-ownership.html And, in particular: "We do not have an elaborate set of rules or procedures for how module owners manage their modules. If it works and the community is generally happy, great. If it doesn't, let's fix it and learn." I understand that Brendan would like to have more/all web-facing functionality covered by some kind of guidelines similar to what you propose. I am not against that idea. However, I don't think the rules you write work very well for the modules I work in. For example, I don't think this part makes sense for networking or PKI: "The Mozilla API review team will consist of Mozillians who have experience designing JS APIs and will have at least one representative from the JS team at all times." After the quarter is over, I am willing to spend time working with you to try to define a policy that might work better for modules that aren't DOM/JS-related. Cheers, Brian _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
