Re: Module list updates are needed

[Benjamin Kerensa]

Indeed many modules still list Brendan as either a peer or owner and as far
as I know his participation even as a volunteer is uncertain.



On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Eric Shepherd 
wrote:

> I've been looking through the module list
> (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/All) since we're trying to set up to
> better track down people to talk to when questions arise during the
> documentation process. As I browse through the list, I see things that
> are out of date, sometimes badly, badly out of date.
>
> (Two specific examples I've come across: the Firefox module
> (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/Firefox) is listed with a project home
> page which is not just in an archived obsolete content area
> (http://www-archive.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/), but even says that
> Firefox 2 is the latest release, and I'm curious if it's still the case
> that Firefox has no submodules; also, the Firefox OS module still lists
> Andreas as module owner. I'm sure there are lots of other issues, too.)
>
> As soon as a list like this starts getting stale, people lose trust in
> it, and that becomes a death spiral for an incredibly useful resource.
> So it would be great for the entire project and the developer docs team
> in particular if people involved in projects/modules would check their
> modules on the list and make sure they're brought up-to-date. It
> shouldn't take long, and would add at least ten, maybe 12 points to your
> awesomeness factor.
>
> Thanks in advance to anyone that puts a few minutes into this!
>
> --
>
> Eric Shepherd
> Senior Technical Writer
> Mozilla 
> Blog: http://www.bitstampede.com/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/sheppy
> Check my Availability 
> ___
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>



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

Re: Surveillance principles draft

[sopa arbuckle]

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 10:53:09 PM UTC+1, mer...@mozilla.com wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Members of the platform, policy, and legal teams at Mozilla have been working 
> to create a set of principles that should serve as a guide to government 
> surveillance activities, and that are grounded in our commitment to trust and 
> openness online. We would appreciate your input on these. Check them out 
> below.
> 
> The following three principles, derived from the Mozilla Manifesto, offer a 
> Mozilla way of thinking about the complex landscape of government 
> surveillance and law enforcement access. We are not proposing a comprehensive 
> list of good or bad government practices, but rather describing the kinds of 
> activities in this space that would protect the underpinnings and integrity 
> of the Web:
> 
> 1) User Security
> Mozilla Manifesto Principle #4 states "Individuals' security and privacy on 
> the Internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional." 
> Governments should act to bolster user security, not to weaken it. Encryption 
> is a key tool in improving user security.
> 
> Requirements that systems be modified to enable government access to 
> encrypted data are a threat to users' security. The primary aim of computer 
> security is to protect user data against any access not authorized by the 
> user; allowing law enforcement access violates that design requirement and 
> makes the system inherently weaker against attacks that it is intended to 
> defend against. Once systems are modified to enable law enforcement access by 
> one government, vendors will be under enormous pressure to provide access to 
> other governments. It will not be possible in practice to restrict access to 
> only "friendly" actors. Moreover, the more government actors have access to 
> monitoring capabilities, the greater the risk that non-governmental 
> cyberattackers will obtain access. Endpoint law enforcement access 
> requirements are also incompatible with open source and open systems because 
> they conflict with users' right to know and control the software running on 
> their own devices.
>  
> 2) Minimal Impact
> Mozilla Principle #2 states that the Internet is a global public resource. 
> Government surveillance decisions should take into account global 
> implications for trust and security online by focusing activities on those 
> with minimal impact.
> 
> Efforts should be made to collect only the information that is needed. 
> Whenever possible, only data on specific, identifiable users should be 
> collected, rather than collecting data from a large group of users with the 
> expectation that it can be triaged later. Activities should be designed to 
> minimize their impact on the Internet infrastructure and on user trust. 
> Compromise of or unauthorized access to third party infrastructure or systems 
> should be avoided if at all possible and is wholly unacceptable if other 
> avenues for obtaining third party cooperation are available.
>  
> 3) Accountability 
> Mozilla Principle #8 calls for transparent community-based accountability as 
> the basis for user trust. Because surveillance activities are (and inherently 
> must be, to some degree) conducted in secret, independent oversight bodies 
> must be effectively empowered and must communicate with and on behalf of the 
> public to ensure democratic accountability. 
> 
> A strong oversight regime involves several components. Oversight should be 
> conducted outside of those agencies responsible for the programs themselves, 
> by bodies with broad mandates and access, technical competence, and 
> enforcement authority. Oversight should include statutory transparency 
> requirements that allow the public to know that aggressive oversight is 
> taking place and to be able to know the scope and scale of government access 
> to user data. Finally, oversight should be evidence-based and start with an 
> analysis of the national security benefits and potential harms of programs in 
> question.

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

Re: proposed module: Emeritus Module Owners

[Myk Melez]

Gregory Szorc 
2015 October 17 at 12:59
I wholeheartedly support the nature of this proposal, which is all about
preserving deserved recognition and respecting people.

My only suggestion is why stop at module owners. Can we find a way to
recognize emeritus peers as well?
The semi-independent Bugzilla project has recognized "Former Developers" 
for a long time on its Meet the Team page.


https://www.bugzilla.org/developers/profiles.html

It's an effective way to recognize those folks for their contributions 
while still directing inquiries about the project to the "Current 
Developers" who can better answer questions today.


And peers also share many of the module responsibilities with owners. 
But owners have the "awesome responsibility of command" and the unique 
burden of developing their peers into worthy replacements and then 
knowing when to step aside. So it's worth recognizing them specially.



Regarding the proposal itself, initially it seemed strange to collect 
emeritus owners into their own module, because it would dissociate them 
from the modules they formerly owned. I would have expected the status 
to be an attribute on each module, much as some current owners/peers are 
marked "inactive" today.


But after sitting with it a bit, it makes more sense as a recognition of 
project leadership (both in the assumption of an ownership role and in 
its relinquishment). And it could also be a resource for new/emerging 
leaders who are looking for mentors or role models. So I think it's a 
good idea.


-myk

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

Re: proposed module: Emeritus Module Owners

[Mitchell Baker]

  
  
On 10/20/15 9:04 AM, Myk Melez wrote:


  
  
  
  Regarding the proposal itself, initially it seemed strange to
  collect emeritus owners into their own module, because it would
  dissociate them from the modules they formerly owned. I would have
  expected the status to be an attribute on each module, much as
  some current owners/peers are marked "inactive" today.
  
  But after sitting with it a bit, it makes more sense as a
  recognition of project leadership (both in the assumption of an
  ownership role and in its relinquishment). And it could also be a
  resource for new/emerging leaders who are looking for mentors or
  role models. So I think it's a good idea.
  
  -myk
  

Cool!  And I'm thinking that if we are going to recognize peers as
well, then perhaps each module template should have another field,
which is a link to the Emeritus Owners and Peers.  I'm not sure
logistically if we can have a module and these separate links which
change in tandem ... so we might have to pick one.

ml
  

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

Re: proposed module: Emeritus Module Owners

[Mike Hoye]

On 2015-10-20 12:04 PM, Myk Melez wrote:


I would have expected the status to be an attribute on each module, 
much as some current owners/peers are marked "inactive" today.
This touches on the only suggestion I had, that former owners and peers 
be able to mark themselves "active" or "inactive", to telegraph their 
interest in continued participation.



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

Re: proposed module: Emeritus Module Owners

[Mitchell Baker]

On 10/20/15 9:30 AM, Mike Hoye wrote:

On 2015-10-20 12:04 PM, Myk Melez wrote:


I would have expected the status to be an attribute on each module,
much as some current owners/peers are marked "inactive" today.



This touches on the only suggestion I had, that former owners and peers
be able to mark themselves "active" or "inactive", to telegraph their
interest in continued participation.


- mhoye


Nice idea, I like that!

ml

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

Re: proposed module: Emeritus Module Owners

[Mitchell Baker]

One other process I'm thinking we should implement is a discussion when 
a Module Owner leaves employment, esp leaving employment at Mozilla.  At 
this discussion we would discuss things like:


-- how they came to be module owner (were they involved as a volunteer? 
 is their involvement all stemming from employment status?)
-- their new role -- how much time will they have?  can they dedicate 
enough attention to be the owner?

-- perhaps set a period of time after the end of employment to review this.
-- add the mechanism Mike mentioned -- where people can indicate if they 
are active or inactive Emeritus Owners.  That way one could step down as 
Owner and still indicate one is active in the module.



then we could think about extending this to peers as well.

What do you think?

ml

On 10/20/15 9:30 AM, Mike Hoye wrote:

On 2015-10-20 12:04 PM, Myk Melez wrote:


I would have expected the status to be an attribute on each module,
much as some current owners/peers are marked "inactive" today.

This touches on the only suggestion I had, that former owners and peers
be able to mark themselves "active" or "inactive", to telegraph their
interest in continued participation.


- mhoye


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

Re: proposed module: Emeritus Module Owners

[Aaron Klotz]

I like this a lot, but I'd also suggest that we expand this idea beyond 
merely just leaving employment to also encompass other changes in 
employment, such as managerial promotions.


If one's employment status changes such that that person is no longer 
able to effectively serve as an owner/peer due to other 
responsibilities, this review process could also be valuable.


On 10/20/2015 12:54 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
One other process I'm thinking we should implement is a discussion 
when a Module Owner leaves employment, esp leaving employment at 
Mozilla.  At this discussion we would discuss things like:


-- how they came to be module owner (were they involved as a 
volunteer?  is their involvement all stemming from employment status?)
-- their new role -- how much time will they have?  can they dedicate 
enough attention to be the owner?
-- perhaps set a period of time after the end of employment to review 
this.
-- add the mechanism Mike mentioned -- where people can indicate if 
they are active or inactive Emeritus Owners.  That way one could step 
down as Owner and still indicate one is active in the module.



then we could think about extending this to peers as well.

What do you think?

ml

On 10/20/15 9:30 AM, Mike Hoye wrote:

On 2015-10-20 12:04 PM, Myk Melez wrote:


I would have expected the status to be an attribute on each module,
much as some current owners/peers are marked "inactive" today.

This touches on the only suggestion I had, that former owners and peers
be able to mark themselves "active" or "inactive", to telegraph their
interest in continued participation.


- mhoye


___
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: proposed module: Emeritus Module Owners

[Jet Villegas]

When a Module Owner is also a Mozilla employee who then leaves Mozilla, it
seems prudent that their Module Ownership is relinquished. There are some
Modules for which Ownership has to be a full Time job. Steven Michaud's
recent departure seems like a good example of how to do that right.

There have been instances where a Module Owner is asked to relinquish
Module Ownership for other reasons. In those cases, I think Emeritus status
and continued Module involvement should be subject to review and approval.

--Jet




On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Mitchell Baker 
wrote:

> One other process I'm thinking we should implement is a discussion when a
> Module Owner leaves employment, esp leaving employment at Mozilla.  At this
> discussion we would discuss things like:
>
> -- how they came to be module owner (were they involved as a volunteer?
> is their involvement all stemming from employment status?)
> -- their new role -- how much time will they have?  can they dedicate
> enough attention to be the owner?
> -- perhaps set a period of time after the end of employment to review this.
> -- add the mechanism Mike mentioned -- where people can indicate if they
> are active or inactive Emeritus Owners.  That way one could step down as
> Owner and still indicate one is active in the module.
>
>
> then we could think about extending this to peers as well.
>
> What do you think?
>
> ml
>
> On 10/20/15 9:30 AM, Mike Hoye wrote:
>
>> On 2015-10-20 12:04 PM, Myk Melez wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I would have expected the status to be an attribute on each module,
>>> much as some current owners/peers are marked "inactive" today.
>>>
>> This touches on the only suggestion I had, that former owners and peers
>> be able to mark themselves "active" or "inactive", to telegraph their
>> interest in continued participation.
>>
>>
>> - mhoye
>>
>
> ___
> 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: proposed module: Emeritus Module Owners

[Mike Hoye]

On 2015-10-20 2:02 PM, Jet Villegas wrote:

When a Module Owner is also a Mozilla employee who then leaves Mozilla, it
seems prudent that their Module Ownership is relinquished. There are some
Modules for which Ownership has to be a full Time job.
I believe that this is a conversation for the module owner and their 
peers to have, and shouldn't forcibly be a condition of employment. I 
really don't think we want to cross those streams.



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

Re: proposed module: Emeritus Module Owners

[Mitchell Baker]

On 10/20/15 11:06 AM, Mike Hoye wrote:

On 2015-10-20 2:02 PM, Jet Villegas wrote:

When a Module Owner is also a Mozilla employee who then leaves
Mozilla, it
seems prudent that their Module Ownership is relinquished. There are some
Modules for which Ownership has to be a full Time job.

I believe that this is a conversation for the module owner and their
peers to have, and shouldn't forcibly be a condition of employment. I
really don't think we want to cross those streams.


- mhoye


this is why i suggest a discussion be required.  it could be that the 
Owner role in a particular module can be done effectively by someone no 
longer an employee; it could be that it can't.  so requiring a 
discussion seems like a "best practice" to me.


And also I like the idea of coming back to this a set time later, say 4 
weeks.  This gives a bit of experience to the decision, and lets both 
the no-longer-an-employee Owner and the rest of the module contributors 
evaluate with that experience.


And I like your idea of Emeritus folks being able to self-identify as 
active, so that their interest in contributing remains apparent.


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