You're welcome to email me directly if you'd like to discuss this
further, but I'm confident Governance is not the right place to continue
this.
Thank you,
- mhoye
--
Mike Hoye
Engineering Community Manager.
___
governance mailin
l,
- mhoye
On 2017-01-10 3:26 PM, Mike Hoye wrote:
I am proposing a change to the ownership of the Mozilla Wiki module.
(Wiki.Mozilla.org, wikimo)
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
I am proposing a change to the ownership of the Mozilla Wiki module.
(Wiki.Mozilla.org, wikimo)
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/Mozilla_Websites#Mozilla_Wiki
The current module owner and peers of wikimo have not been active
participants in the Mozilla project for some time; I and small numb
On 2016-07-13 3:06 AM, Reed Loden wrote:
I will also be stepping down as a module peer for Planet for the same
reason. mhoye has my full support in leading Planet forward.
I've listed you as a peer emeritus of the Planet module; thank you for
all your help.
- mhoye
___
On 2016-07-15 2:54 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
Hearing no objections, I have made this change on the wiki.
Robert, thank you for your years of service: I've listed you as a
module owner emeritus.
For my first act as ruler^Wmodule owner of the Planet, I'd like to
welcome back Asa Dotzler - f
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 modu
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",
On 2015-09-02 5:53 PM, mer...@mozilla.com wrote:
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 ke
On 2015-07-06 1:00 AM, tssw...@gmail.com wrote:
Point 1: How does Mozilla justify push-installing an uninvited
program. The usual term for doing that is "distributing a virus", and
is frowned on polite company; unethical if not illegal.
There is, as always, a distinction here between "freedom t
On 2015-05-25 10:24 AM, Majken Connor wrote:
Ok, and how would we figure out where people are on a map, or if they
are near each other in this case?
We could let people put a pin on a map, if they're inclined to do so.
- mhoye
___
governance mailing
On 2015-05-23 2:04 PM, Panos Astithas wrote:
I can understand either using ISO verbatim or using a free-form field
labeled "Country or Region", because in both cases we can legitimately
say in case of complaints "it's not our fault", but devising our own
special set of rules sounds like asking
On 2015-05-12 3:00 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
We should not be taking actions that make it look like Mozilla is
trying to independently determine what is and what isn't a country.
Pointing to the spec and washing our hands of the question is just as
much of a political statemet as making up our ow
On 2015-03-14 8:37 AM, Axel Hecht wrote:
Hi Wim, [...]
There's an easy answer for you, though: No, that's not compatible with
our licenses, and I guess with any open source license.
On a technical level you're going to have a bad time trying to
distribute text in a way that's non-reusable an
Hello, Governance.
I wanted to let you all know that we're in the early stages of
respinning the quarterly Bugzilla database-dump-for-researchers process,
which has been lying fallow after being discontinued as a peripheral
part of the PII-chemspill cleanup last year.
The reason we're doing
On 2015-01-30 1:56 AM, Francesco Lodolo [:flod] wrote:
But ignoring that, I don't see anyone talking about "time": how long
are you suggesting to keep these logs? 'Forever' is really not
something I'm comfortable with.
On a side note, I confess that I'm already annoyed when people copy
and
On 2015-01-27 2:17 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
I'm having a really hard time parsing most of the conversation here.
It seems that most people are under the false impression that IRC
conversations are private by default. That is not the case.
That a user's expectations are based on inaccurate in
On 2015-01-27 1:51 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Mike Hoye wrote:
I'd intended this request to be only for product- and project-related
channels, and even then to be opt-in.
Blanket opt-out enrollment in anything doesn't really sound like us.
- mhoy
On 2015-01-27 12:59 PM, Patrick Cloke wrote:
From (kind of) following this thread it seems that the argument really
boils down to whether it should be opt-in or opt-out.
I'd intended this request to be only for product- and project-related
channels, and even then to be opt-in.
Blanket opt-ou
On 2015-01-26 10:30 PM, mer...@mozilla.com wrote:
Jumping on this late...
Putting aside the question of what logging is currently occurring, we want to
ensure that any logging that could occur as a matter of policy - and any data
collection, retention, and sharing generally - satisfies a speci
On 2015-01-25 3:52 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
Ultimately, if someone is interested in knowing what a team is doing,
they should spend however much time they feel is necessary for them to
be kept abreast of a team. Whether that be following a team blog,
subscribing to a mailing list, watching A
On 2015-01-13 10:04 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
I suppose this proposal is no go too? I think the issue is despite how
much support there is to move this forward by staff we need someone
higher level to support the proposal.
I don't think that the Reps module leadership has laid out their
p
On 2015-01-09 9:14 AM, tobbi.s...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, I get it. Learning for you equals "I only learn when something
falls within my own opinion".
When I mentioned that this discussion seemed to have passed the point of
being useful or constructive, this is precisely the sort of thing I meant.
On 2015-01-08 2:40 PM, Al Billings wrote:
Potentially divisive views (especially when it is known that they are
divisive) that have nothing to do with our work should not be shared
with coworkers unsolicited. Full stop.
Planet participation is not and will not be limited to Mozilla
employees. An
On 2015-01-08 7:51 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
As Benjamin has quoted in another post here, from the Planet Mozilla
Wiki Page: "Planet is a community of people, not products, services,
and bits."
This isn't directed at Robert in particular, but I've got the impression
that we're quickly getting pa
On 2015-01-07 11:57 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2015-01-07 9:35 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 01/01/15 17:03, Majken Connor wrote:
Whichever
version of God does or doesn't exist doesn't affect Mozilla as an
organization.
Unfortunately, that's not something everyone agrees on either. :-( So I
On 2014-12-31 8:20 AM, tobbi.s...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the rule should be that people whose opinion could be
considered extremist
No amount of rules will ever be better than smart people who care.
This proposal amounts to "This is what we think caring looks like for
Planet participants", a
On 2014-12-29 5:02 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 18/12/14 16:57, Gervase Markham wrote:
Well... OK. :-) I'm with you on the principle. But still hazy about the
practice. Help me with an example: what kind of
warning/disclaimer/sentence would have been the sort of thing these
guidelines would enc
On 2014-12-17 6:33 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
Sheeri said something very interesting the other day. She suggested that
people wanting not to be exposed to views they disagree with were
demanding a form of privilege.
There's no "demand" here, and to put it in those terms is unproductive.
This is
On 2014-12-17 6:34 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
Oh, great. So if people are already sending a tagged feed to Planet,
this part of the policy would require no changes from their current
behaviour?
That's correct. And, bonus, though that's not the case for the majority
of Planet's incoming feeds, it
On 2014-12-15 1:46 PM, Nikos Roussos wrote:
On 12/15/2014 08:21 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
We already have this with subplanets. Webmaker could create its own.
But it would be nice to have them all in one place. It would be easier
to discover them and would de-duplicate maintenance work.
The
On 2014-12-15 9:01 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 10/12/14 22:19, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
It is a shame there is not despite how much support for such was shown in
the last round of discussions. It seems like we just got into bikeshedding
over the topic.
I really don't think that issues about w
On 2014-12-15 9:35 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
Hi Mike,
Hi, Gerv!
I've trimmed some of your text below for brevity's sake but I think I've
spoken to your core arguments.
On 12/12/14 16:48, Mike Hoye wrote:
As part of a Planet refresh [1] planned for the new year and aiming
On 2014-12-13 1:36 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
When planet was created there were few enough blogs aggregated that it
was a good way to get to better know people outside of a Mozilla
context. Last time we had a debate about planet, this was the crux of
the issue, whether or not this was planet's p
On 2014-12-12 12:58 PM, Kent James wrote:
My suggestion? When you do these guidelines, please make a deliberate
effort to reach out to people from a more conservative or religious
perspective, and get them to participate in the content. They may not
want to come forward on their own (think th
On 2014-12-12 12:03 PM, Michael Kelly wrote:
Neat! A few questions:
- What's a position statement? I just don't know specifically what
that term means. :P
What we're aiming for here is, in the broadest sense:
- "I invite my fellow Mozillians to discuss this controversial topic,
that matter
Hi, everyone -
As part of a Planet refresh [1] planned for the new year and aiming for
end-Q2, the Planet peers are going to be revising the somewhat-sparse
Planet documentation and policies [2]. Existing policies haven't
reflected reality in some time and, like virtually everything about
Pla
On 2014-11-25 12:45 PM, Adam Porter wrote:
If Google or Yahoo have been complicit in doing so, or coerced to the
point of being legally unable to resist, then a strong argument could
be made against Mozilla's making deals with them, as well. Perhaps
that is a conversation that also needs to be
On 2014-11-25 9:06 AM, Sheeri Cabral wrote:
My guess is that while poking a firewall hole isn't hard, poking one
big enough for every Chinese Firefox user is either too much, too
costly or too dangerous to do. Same with trying to teach every
individual Firefox user in China how to poke their ow
I'm more of a crowbar-and HEV suit kind of guy, but I'm here to help.
- mhoye
On 2014-10-31 5:13 PM, Blake Kaplan wrote:
I was going to give my axe here, but I left that at home. Instead, take my
pen, which I've heard is mightier even than the sword.
Kyle Huey wrote:
And you have my bow.
-
On 2014-08-26 5:43 PM, Asa Dotzler wrote:
IMO, I doubt that it's "we no longer care about that threat" as much
as Mozilla's leadership deciding that not playing the game at all,
giving up on building products and educating users that might
positively influence the rules of the game, and cedin
On 2014-08-26 2:34 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-08-26, 1:31 PM, Mike Hoye wrote:
I share your concerns, but I don't think we can avoid being subject to
the discovery laws, however egregious, of any country we have an
office in.
Is that related to the location of our offices o
On 2014-08-26 1:10 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Thanks for your email! I'm curious to know what jurisdiction this
data is going to be stored in. If the answer is the US, what steps
have we taken to ensure that this data will be safe from being
accessed by the US government through a subpoena?
On 2014-08-18 7:15 PM, Irvin Chen wrote:
The usage data is also very important and useful for l10n community for the
overall promoting planning. We need to know whether how many people still use
thunderbird in order to decide how much effort we can put and we can get to
support that.
It’ll be
On 2014-07-25 3:55 PM, Asa Dotzler wrote:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing-and-malware-protection-work
Do we have a single list somewhere that outlines what external services
Firefox relies on to provide what functionality and what those
relationships involve? With
On 2014-06-02, 4:42 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 30/05/14 22:01, Justin Dolske wrote:
What's the goal of this "agreement"? That is, what problem is it
addressing or even just general purpose?
I think this is key. There are several possible purposes it could have:
1) legal purpose. (But this h
On 2014-05-23, 12:54 AM, Chris Pearce wrote:
I meant to say: "In general I find time spend in meetings is usually
**un**productive time, so I avoid meetings.
There's a line that a few weeks of hard work can save you an hour or two
of research, and that's even more true of project coordinati
On 2014-05-22, 10:54 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-05-22, 9:32 AM, Till Schneidereit wrote:
I didn't actually watch the call all that often. I did read the notes
almost always, though. Hence my suggestion that we might continue
publishing the notes, with an explanation that they might be sli
On 2014-04-30, 1:19 PM, Pascal Chevrel wrote:
Obviously you don't know Benoit. He has been deeply involved in the
Mozilla project for at least 10 years, he is one of our core
localizers for French, he was there when there was no money, no
employee and we had to build products on our own machin
On 2014-04-30, 11:46 AM, benoit.les...@gmail.com wrote:
I think these are bad excuses. The right thing being hard is never a
good excuse for not doing the right thing. If that means hiring more
people, or mobilizing more community members to achieve that goal, or
lose a few months of good stati
On 2014-04-11, 11:23 AM, Jim Taylor wrote:
The response is not going to help because it does not address the main concern
that people have.
I don't think anyone is going to make any kind of prediction or
prescriptivist claims about who the next CEO of Mozilla can or should
be. It's hard to ima
On 2014-04-10, 7:38 PM, Jim Taylor wrote:
Still no action on this. Not going to drop another bomb on Friday, are they,
so it is into next week.
The FAQ was updated last night, as I understand it.
- mhoye
___
governance mailing list
governance@list
On 2014-04-10, 5:23 PM, looneybir...@gmail.com wrote:
And that means it is very likely that the stories about you forcing Eich to
resign are true and that you're just lying to get people to keep your products.
Hi, Jan -
Thanks for your comment; we've been struggling with the amount of
misi
On 2014-04-10, 11:58 PM, Beth Christensen 916-502-2265 wrote:
Your company's behavior is despicable and outrageous! I will no longer use
Firefox and will recommend to all I know to remove it from their computers
too.
Hi, Beth -
Thanks for your comment. As you might have guessed, a lot of peop
On 2014-04-03, 8:20 PM, Kartikaya Gupta wrote:
Often there is not enough data to decide objectively if one option is
better than other.
Voting blurs accountability. That's not the only reason we use the peer
model, but it's a strong argument in its favor: there's no evidence that
voting on comp
On 2014-04-07, 2:40 PM, Dennis Culley wrote:
Most organization do not approve of employees using the company name to espouse
their own personal views.
Mozilla is not most companies. Most companies don't even come close.
Whatever I think about this, I want to tell you how amazing it is, how
f
On 2014-04-07, 10:18 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
* No comparisons of particular behaviour with paedophilia.
Let's extend this to a general ban on references to or threats of
physical or sexual abuse.
- mhoye
___
governance mailing list
governance@list
On 1/16/2014, 12:25 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
Can we just store the modules membership in LDAP or some other machine
readable location (if not inside mozilla-central for relevant modules)
and have a web page pull from that? Yes, it introduces process and
overhead. But, module membership is the
On 11/25/2013, 12:35 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
a lot of non-public activity on bugzilla is protected via the
mozilla-corporate-confidential security group. all mozilla
corporation employees are automatically members of this group, however
mozilla foundation employees are not.
there is a reque
On 11/27/2013, 8:52 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
So we need to start out deciding why we think we need a million
Mozillians, what projects could actually use more help and what kind
of help they need, and only then set the measurable goals for each
project. Maybe that means radically growing t
On 11/4/2013, 1:40 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
Do you really think that all or most existing mozillians.org vouches
had that level of trust associated with them?
For what it's worth, we've had at least one occurrence - the Thunderbird
announcement - where an email sent only to the "vouched mozi
On 10/29/2013, 11:18 AM, Mike Connor wrote:
On 2013-10-29 10:14 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
We seed the group with, say, twenty or so people whose status as
Mozillians is beyond doubt. We then say that anyone else can be admitted
to the group if they are endorsed (I won't say "vouched", as it's
c
On 2013-10-25 1:16 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
You specifically mention Mozilla Reps, but that document says: "To
best reflect Mozilla's purpose as a non-profit mission first,
paid-staff will also have @mozilla.org email addresses." Is that still
part of the plan?
A casual survey of the last two
On 2013-10-02 6:23 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 27/09/13 07:26, Francesco Lodolo [:flod] wrote:
Mozilla manifesto is currently localized in 35 languages, do you expect
these locales to follow the same principle you're applying to en-US? I
could be wrong, but for most of them that's not going to
On 2013-09-16 9:21 PM, Smartin wrote:
Since the last round of updates we've had additional feedback from the User
Engagement team, and we'd like to propose some further changes to a broad
audience.
The goal of the proposed changes is to see *if* we can trim the principles to 118 characters o
On 2013-08-07 6:03 AM, Tom Farrow wrote:
Currently in IT we're working on a contributor agreement similar to the
Committer's Agreement but instead for IT contributors.
One of my fellow contributors often asks me "Why can't we just have one
agreement?" which in theory, makes sense
In practice
65 matches
Mail list logo
