On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Patrick Finch <pfi...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 5/30/18 11:27 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> >> 1) Positive participation in an area of the project is generally a >> prerequisite for authority over that area of the project. We expect >> module owners to have contributed to the area they are module owners >> of prior to becoming module owners. (This has the downside that >> authority needs the kind of time commitment that may be hard to >> sustain unless paid to commit the time, which introduces bias in terms >> of people who are able to commit a lot of time to the project despite >> not being paid to do so. Still, the next item wouldn't really work >> without some relation to demonstrated positive participation. It >> doesn't mean that people who haven't committed the time to have formal >> authority shouldn't be heard.) >> >> 2) Authority in the Open Source project shouldn't be tied to being >> paid by a particular entity. (Firefox development is now much more >> concentrated to being paid by Mozilla than it was e.g. in 2004, but >> co-development is a generally healthy thing in Open Source. Therefore, >> I think we should keep our governance structure open to more >> co-development again in the future and be careful not to close off >> governance participation to current co-developers.) >> >> 3) Authority in an area of the project should involve continued >> participation in that area of the project. (We now have the module >> owner emeritus status, which acknowledges past participation while >> withdrawing current authority.) >> > I think these are all very good points. Do you propose that we formalise > them, or generally make them more explicit, in the governance statement? > (i.e. would you modify the proposal?)
I meant writing these down, yes. However, it appears that https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/module-ownership/ has been updated while I wasn't paying attention, so it's already closer to capturing the above points than I thought. Point #2 doesn't appear to be covered explicitly, though. (While you have write access to /about/governance/ , it would probably be worthwhile to remove the part about super-reviewers per the recent dev-platform thread.) -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@hsivonen.fi https://hsivonen.fi/ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
