Re: Ownership of the Rhino project

[Gavin Sharp]

Hi Greg,

Did this request already get resolved? I see you've recently been
committing to the Mozilla Rhino repository:
https://github.com/mozilla/rhino/commits?author=gbrail

For the purposes of updating the ownership info at
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/All#Rhino, it would be ideal to get
sign-off from the existing owner/peers if possible (perhaps already
done on the Rhino discussion list post you mention? I couldn't see any
relevant discussions at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine.rhino).

Gavin

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Greg Brail  wrote:
> I'd like to propose myself as the new owner of the Rhino project.
>
> The official Mozilla Rhino distribution in GitHub has been idle for a while
> now, but I've been maintaining a fork at https://github.com/apigee/rhino
> and there we've been able to pull together a number of contributions. I'd
> like to move these contributions back to the official project and start
> doing releases again.
>
> I emailed the Rhino discussion list about this and the people there were
> fairly positive, and I emailed Brendan Eich as well.
>
> Please let me know what we can do to get this project moving again. Thanks!
>
> --
> *greg brail* | *apigee * | twitter @gbrail
> 
> ___
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Re: Ownership of the Rhino project

[Greg Brail]

Thanks for following up! I also got help from the GitHub admins.

Hannes Wallnoefer is the former maintainer, and he is in favor of this
change. We had a discussion on this thread:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla-rhino/g-7k20DCQMo

and he also asked Sonatype to grant me access.

https://issues.sonatype.org/browse/OSSRH-13520

At this point I have the access that I need to proceed, but I understand
the need to have consensus and I hope that the stuff above will help.

We also seem to have a mailing list issue. According to this page:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Projects/Rhino/Community

the community hasn't been using the "js-engine.rhino" group for a long time
due to spam issues, but it sounds like people are posting on it again.

Is there a way that we can shut that old group down and redirect people to
only one group?


On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Gavin Sharp  wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> Did this request already get resolved? I see you've recently been
> committing to the Mozilla Rhino repository:
> https://github.com/mozilla/rhino/commits?author=gbrail
>
> For the purposes of updating the ownership info at
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/All#Rhino, it would be ideal to get
> sign-off from the existing owner/peers if possible (perhaps already
> done on the Rhino discussion list post you mention? I couldn't see any
> relevant discussions at
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine.rhino).
>
> Gavin
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Greg Brail  wrote:
> > I'd like to propose myself as the new owner of the Rhino project.
> >
> > The official Mozilla Rhino distribution in GitHub has been idle for a
> while
> > now, but I've been maintaining a fork at https://github.com/apigee/rhino
> > and there we've been able to pull together a number of contributions. I'd
> > like to move these contributions back to the official project and start
> > doing releases again.
> >
> > I emailed the Rhino discussion list about this and the people there were
> > fairly positive, and I emailed Brendan Eich as well.
> >
> > Please let me know what we can do to get this project moving again.
> Thanks!
> >
> > --
> > *greg brail* | *apigee * | twitter @gbrail
> > 
> > ___
> > governance mailing list
> > governance@lists.mozilla.org
> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>



-- 
*greg brail* | *apigee * | twitter @gbrail

___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Re: Logging All Public Project IRC Channels

[Fred Wenzel]

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch
 wrote:
> So, strawman (which IMO is reasonable): can we check irc.m.o for
> currently-public channels with 10 or more people in that are not currently
> being publicly logged, which are clearly project/product-related (rather
> than watercooler chat stuff), and ask channel owners for all of them if they
> would consider ensuring the channel is publicly logged? (where "No" is a
> valid answer to that request, assuming $reasons)
>
> Does that seem like a reasonable proposal to everyone, even if it doesn't go
> quite so far as to either not change anything on the one hand, or enforce
> that everything is logged on the other?

+1 from me with a few points to consider:

* who's the "owner"? Can that easily / programmatically be determined?
I suppose if it's registered with chanserv, not sure if all relevant
channels are.
* let's still figure out how to make "logged and googleable" obvious
to people in those channels
* are we going to suggest/establish a particular place/procedure for
those logs to be published? How do people find out where that is?

~F
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Re: Logging All Public Project IRC Channels

[Gijs Kruitbosch]

On 28/01/2015 19:52, Fred Wenzel wrote:

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch
 wrote:

So, strawman (which IMO is reasonable): can we check irc.m.o for
currently-public channels with 10 or more people in that are not currently
being publicly logged, which are clearly project/product-related (rather
than watercooler chat stuff), and ask channel owners for all of them if they
would consider ensuring the channel is publicly logged? (where "No" is a
valid answer to that request, assuming $reasons)

Does that seem like a reasonable proposal to everyone, even if it doesn't go
quite so far as to either not change anything on the one hand, or enforce
that everything is logged on the other?


+1 from me with a few points to consider:

* who's the "owner"? Can that easily / programmatically be determined?
I suppose if it's registered with chanserv, not sure if all relevant
channels are.


Chanserv is what I had in mind, failing that we could check with the ops 
in the channel.



* let's still figure out how to make "logged and googleable" obvious
to people in those channels


IMO /topic should have a link. If there is too much in there to do that, 
assuming we centralize this it should be clear to everyone.



* are we going to suggest/establish a particular place/procedure for
those logs to be published? How do people find out where that is?


The de facto standard place seems to be http://logs.glob.uno/ (CC'ing 
glob, who AFAIK is running this). I don't know if there's interest in 
moving that somewhere more mozilla-official-y. I wouldn't much care 
either way, but I guess we could check with IT, who already admin the 
IRC server anyway, if other people do feel strongly?


If there is a lack of objection within the next week or so / general 
agreement on this plan, Benjamin, could you drive this?


~ Gijs
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Re: Logging All Public Project IRC Channels

[Gijs Kruitbosch]

On 28/01/2015 20:00, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:

On 28/01/2015 19:52, Fred Wenzel wrote:

* let's still figure out how to make "logged and googleable" obvious
to people in those channels


IMO /topic should have a link. If there is too much in there to do that,
assuming we centralize this it should be clear to everyone.


Sorry, I just realized that you probably mean making the privacy 
implications of saying stuff in logged channels obvious to participants, 
rather than making it obvious *where* to find logs if people need them 
(which is what I thought you meant when I initially replied). Good question.


I still think /topic linking will be easiest. I and many others find the 
'welcoming bots' pretty spammy, so I'd prefer not to use them if we 
don't absolutely have to.


We can also put a disclaimer with a link to the logging index on the 
MOTD (which should be a straightforward job for an IRCOP / server 
admin). The IRC wiki pages on MDN/wiki.m.o should probably also mention 
this.


I personally would think that sufficient - as many people have 
highlighted, conversations are often logged by other participants and 
I've come to expect this, but I am probably not the least biased 
observer. If other people think we very much need more notice than the 
topic, MOTD and wikis, then please speak up.


~ Gijs

___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Re: Logging All Public Project IRC Channels

[Benjamin Kerensa]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch
 wrote:
> On 28/01/2015 19:52, Fred Wenzel wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> So, strawman (which IMO is reasonable): can we check irc.m.o for
>>> currently-public channels with 10 or more people in that are not
>>> currently
>>> being publicly logged, which are clearly project/product-related (rather
>>> than watercooler chat stuff), and ask channel owners for all of them if
>>> they
>>> would consider ensuring the channel is publicly logged? (where "No" is a
>>> valid answer to that request, assuming $reasons)
>>>
>>> Does that seem like a reasonable proposal to everyone, even if it doesn't
>>> go
>>> quite so far as to either not change anything on the one hand, or enforce
>>> that everything is logged on the other?
>>
>>
>> +1 from me with a few points to consider:
>>
>> * who's the "owner"? Can that easily / programmatically be determined?
>> I suppose if it's registered with chanserv, not sure if all relevant
>> channels are.
>
>
> Chanserv is what I had in mind, failing that we could check with the ops in
> the channel.
>
>> * let's still figure out how to make "logged and googleable" obvious
>> to people in those channels
>
>
> IMO /topic should have a link. If there is too much in there to do that,
> assuming we centralize this it should be clear to everyone.
>
>> * are we going to suggest/establish a particular place/procedure for
>> those logs to be published? How do people find out where that is?
>
>
> The de facto standard place seems to be http://logs.glob.uno/ (CC'ing glob,
> who AFAIK is running this). I don't know if there's interest in moving that
> somewhere more mozilla-official-y. I wouldn't much care either way, but I
> guess we could check with IT, who already admin the IRC server anyway, if
> other people do feel strongly?
>
> If there is a lack of objection within the next week or so / general
> agreement on this plan, Benjamin, could you drive this?
>
> ~ Gijs

I could drive this yes
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Re: Logging All Public Project IRC Channels

[Byron Jones]

Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:

The de facto standard place seems to be http://logs.glob.uno/ (CC'ing
glob, who AFAIK is running this). I don't know if there's interest in
moving that somewhere more mozilla-official-y.


there's been some objections to that - in particular bug 1125827 comment 
9 and onwards.


> I wouldn't much care either way, but I guess we could check with IT,
> who already admin the  IRC server anyway, if other people do feel
> strongly?

i'm happy to continue to run my logging service on my own infrastructure 
for the foreseeable future.  the hosting costs are minimal, and i enjoy 
running it :)


--
byron jones - :glob - bugzilla.mozilla.org team -

___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Re: Logging All Public Project IRC Channels

[Yvan Boily]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Byron Jones  wrote:

> Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
>
>> The de facto standard place seems to be http://logs.glob.uno/ (CC'ing
>> glob, who AFAIK is running this). I don't know if there's interest in
>> moving that somewhere more mozilla-official-y.
>>
>
> there's been some objections to that - in particular bug 1125827 comment 9
> and onwards.


Yep, I think the main thing here is that legal/privacy folks need to weigh
in and do a privacy assessment (and I needinfo'd the right person on that
bug to get that ball rolling), but IMO this is a blocker before anything is
done using Mozilla infrastructure (
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1125827#c3 is basically the
reason I think this is currently blocked)
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance