Very good point about the technical barriers.
But what about the non-technical ones, which was the really holding it up?
What has changed on our side (the community) to merit the reversal of
Mozilla's stance?
I don't want to sound defeatist, but I didn't think there was any change in
recent talk
Mozilla decided to move to gApps for their mail after we had this
discussion. That should remove some blockers on the technical side. Also
there is a new participation team that is doing more work on defining and
recognizing contributors, which was a blocker on the process side. It seems
like we're
Hey Benjamin,
I was pretty active in this discussion LAST YEAR and I pretty much gave up
in championing the mozilla.org email address on the understanding that it's
recognition Mozilla is not willing to give any time soon.
Here's what I wrote almost one year ago:
"I'm also getting the impression
To be totally honest it seems disappointing that were still blocked on
this. One issue I do see is we haven't defined a Mozillian well and new
hires are vouched as Mozillians instantly and new volunteers can be vouched
easily.
Vouched Mozillians status has kind of been watered down if you compare
We talked about this for over a year and there were clearly a lot of good
reasons to help people who have been active contributors but aren't (or are
no longer) employed by Mozilla identify with the project. I won't always be
employed by Mozilla, but it would be meaningful to me to have a long-term
On 01/22/2015 02:15 AM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
There are a few: [...]
Wouldn't a @mozillians.org email alias available to every Registered Mozillian
be able to solve these three problems? Employees, Reps, and other types of
contributors could all register for one.
What problem do you have th
There are a few:
1) Contributors currently lack a project wide authentic address that they
can use when engaging externally (events, conferences or event downstream
open source projects)
2) Staff when they leave MoCo lose their @mozilla.com addresses so by
offering @mozilla.org to both paid and unp
On 01/21/2015 07:56 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
No, the idea is to figure out email addresses for communities and use Reps
as the pilot group to figure out how to do this since Reps have already
been vetted.
Okay. What problem is this solving? That wasn't clear from the thread.
(Fwiw, I'm 100% in
Sorry, for community members, not communities!
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
> No, the idea is to figure out email addresses for communities and use Reps
> as the pilot group to figure out how to do this since Reps have already
> been vetted.
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7
No, the idea is to figure out email addresses for communities and use Reps
as the pilot group to figure out how to do this since Reps have already
been vetted.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:21 PM, fantasai
wrote:
> On 01/14/2015 11:03 AM, Mike Connor wrote:
>
>> I'll note that, historically, we have
On 01/14/2015 11:03 AM, Mike Connor wrote:
I'll note that, historically, we haven't created a new @mozilla.org address
since 2005 or so. Mitchell had very strong feelings on the subject at the
time, and we simply dropped the practice. I don't think we can or should
move forward without her appr
On 10/29/2013 11:54 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Friday 2013-10-25 19:05 +0300, Nikos Roussos wrote:
Although I agree in principle with the "why only employees and reps?"
argument I think we should consider this as a try out phase. See how
that goes and how we can expand this to all active contr
The reps council took a position last year on the previous proposal I don't
think it would make sense for them to take a position on a new proposal
until Mitchell approves this as Mike Connor points out this is probably the
blocker. One thing Mitchell said last year was she wanted to see Mozillian
I'll note that, historically, we haven't created a new @mozilla.org address
since 2005 or so. Mitchell had very strong feelings on the subject at the
time, and we simply dropped the practice. I don't think we can or should
move forward without her approval.
On a personal level, I'd be okay with
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
Could we not set them up on a Google account as I know we have a great
relationship with them is it seems
On 14 Jan 2015 03:04, "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
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.
On Dec 17, 2014 5:12 AM, "Larissa Shapiro" wrote:
>
> My tl;dr comment is that if this is clearly marketed as a "pilot"
My tl;dr comment is that if this is clearly marketed as a "pilot" then I
fully, 100% support it, though I will echo the concern that this overloads
the Reps Council - in the long run it might make sense for another group of
people to be delegated this authority.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:15 AM, B
-1 on the idea of using Reps as a pilot program.
If we decide that giving @mozilla.org addresses to some volunteers is
the right thing to do, we need to be able to manage requests from non
reps as well.
Otherwise we will create yet another tension between volunteers, and we
don't need any more
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 16/12/14 16:34, Mike Hoye wrote:
> > I think that the case the Reps make - broadly speaking that enabling
> > community leadership is a thing we want and that a mozilla.org email
> > address can lend weight and legitimacy to those effor
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
> I think we were in agreement on Reps getting email addresses. Two parts
> stalled:
>
> 1. How to actually give out the mailboxes
> 2. When we expand to allow non-Reps contributors to have the addresses (as
> we agreed that contributors besid
On 16/12/14 16:34, Mike Hoye wrote:
> I think that the case the Reps make - broadly speaking that enabling
> community leadership is a thing we want and that a mozilla.org email
> address can lend weight and legitimacy to those efforts - is compelling.
> I think a better question than "should the R
I think we were in agreement on Reps getting email addresses. Two parts
stalled:
1. How to actually give out the mailboxes
2. When we expand to allow non-Reps contributors to have the addresses (as
we agreed that contributors besides Reps have earned them) how do we have a
clear definition for non
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 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 who should get one, what the
criteria should
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 08/12/14 12:04, rjen...@mozilla.com wrote:
> > I'm working with a volunteer who has been supporting my team quite a
> > lot, and I would like to give access to a resource source (appannie)
> > for them to be more integrated in our work.
On 08/12/14 12:04, rjen...@mozilla.com wrote:
> I'm working with a volunteer who has been supporting my team quite a
> lot, and I would like to give access to a resource source (appannie)
> for them to be more integrated in our work. (NB: Mozilla has free
> access to as many seats as we want but u
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 2:56:47 PM UTC, :mrz wrote:
> On Monday, December 16, 2013 10:06:50 PM UTC-8, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> > Alina,
> >
> > Wow, it is kind of awesome to have this stuff in the public and
> > available. I had forgotten I had written this post (thought not the
> > histor
On Monday, December 16, 2013 10:06:50 PM UTC-8, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> Alina,
>
> Wow, it is kind of awesome to have this stuff in the public and
> available. I had forgotten I had written this post (thought not the
> history, which i remember well.)
When researching the history around this,
Alina,
Wow, it is kind of awesome to have this stuff in the public and
available. I had forgotten I had written this post (thought not the
history, which i remember well.)
mozilla.org addresses have been tricky for a while now. We could do one
of three things.
1. not use mozilla.org
Hi,
Just for reference, I think this blog wasn’t mentioned:
https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2005/02/24/email-addresses-mozillaorg-and-the-mozilla-foundation/
In my personal opinion, I think that, right now, the structure of the
organisation and the situation is more complex than it was b
El 15/12/13 12:21, gokoproj...@gmail.com escribió:
> While I truly believe and value community member;s effort (being a community
> member right now I am), I am just a bit old school and if either won't work I
> am just happy with something like @mozillians.org :)
The point here is there is a b
+1 for the same reason. I’m very happy with @mozillians.org (and I’d use it
proudly when needed).
Also, Mozilla is not Debian, Apache or Python. Mozilla is a set of
organisations with millions of dollars revenue, a business development team and
offices in some of the most expensive cities in th
On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 4:30:19 PM UTC-5, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> gokoproj...@gmail.com schrieb:
>
> > I personally like to keep @mozilla.org for MoFo and of course @mozilla.com
> > will continue to be for MoCo. The distinction allows outsiders to know the
> > role of the owner of this em
On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 4:30:19 PM UTC-5, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> gokoproj...@gmail.com schrieb:
>
> > I personally like to keep @mozilla.org for MoFo and of course @mozilla.com
> > will continue to be for MoCo. The distinction allows outsiders to know the
> > role of the owner of this em
gokoproj...@gmail.com schrieb:
I personally like to keep @mozilla.org for MoFo and of course @mozilla.com will
continue to be for MoCo. The distinction allows outsiders to know the role of
the owner of this email alias.
I do not think that's a distinction that matters at all (I personally
ne
On 09/12/13 11:56, gokoproj...@gmail.com wrote:
> I personally like to keep @mozilla.org for MoFo
MoFo currently use @mozillafoundation.org.
> and of course
> @mozilla.com will continue to be for MoCo. The distinction allows
> outsiders to know the role of the owner of this email alias.
I guess
I am probably late to this thread, but as a former intern I and quite a few
others have suggested this this summer about opening up @mozillians.org email
address to verified contributors, if @mozilla.org and @mozilla.com shall be
reserved.
I personally like to keep @mozilla.org for MoFo and of
On 03/12/13 19:11, Majken Connor wrote:
> Obviously we would continue sharing any proposals with Governance just like
> the original suggestion has done, and of course we could use the ideas
> already proposed - 2 vouches, renew yearly etc. Does this sound like the
> right solution?
I'm not sure t
> Actually I think Community IT (the IT
> group) might be big enough now to start handling their own screening if
> they wanted to.
We are not and even if that weren't true I'd still advocate for the existing
Reps task force to continue this since they have a much closer relationship
with Commu
Benjamin,
There are two community IT groups. Community IT itself is an IT project. IT
asked the Reps Council to help screen the people requesting resources
because we're in a better position to know all the regional communities.
The resources given through the Community IT project are not Reps spe
Majken Connor wrote:
>If this is going to live under Reps then it wouldn't be the Community
>IT
>taskforce triaging the requests.
>
>William by "make this happen" before year's end, do you mean the
>initial
>roll-out to current Reps, or do you mean to start giving out email
>addresses to those not
Why would Community IT not handle it? That's the rep taskforce that handles
all IT requests?
On Dec 5, 2013 9:27 AM, "Majken Connor" wrote:
>
> If this is going to live under Reps then it wouldn't be the Community IT
taskforce triaging the requests.
>
> William by "make this happen" before year's
If this is going to live under Reps then it wouldn't be the Community IT
taskforce triaging the requests.
William by "make this happen" before year's end, do you mean the initial
roll-out to current Reps, or do you mean to start giving out email
addresses to those not currently under Reps?
On Th
On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 03:02 -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> Ideally the next steps could be:
>
> 1. Determine what budget the cost of offering the addresses will come from.
> 2. Determine who POC will be (Staff) for creation of addresses.
> 3. Community IT Requests Task Force will begin triaging
Ideally the next steps could be:
1. Determine what budget the cost of offering the addresses will come from.
2. Determine who POC will be (Staff) for creation of addresses.
3. Community IT Requests Task Force will begin triaging requests for
addresses within the approved scope and will notify POC
+1 for this proposed solution.
If we move forward with this approach, what are the "concrete" next steps to
make this happen before year's end?
- William
---
William Quiviger
Mozilla Reps Council Member
https://reps.mozilla.org/u/wquiviger/
On Dec 3, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrot
This sounds like it could be the right solution or even the best one we
currently have available to us. We already have a similar process with
Community IT Requests and I think we could just expand to triage those
requests through that Task Force.
I would love to move forward with this and would l
The peers of the Reps module discussed this, and whatever mechanism is used
to hand out these email addresses, we feel like it falls under our mandate
as a need we should be filling - that is to say, not that we want to be the
ones to control it, but that it doesn't make sense to create *another*
g
El 25/11/13 17:10, b...@lassey.us escribió:
> To summarize, some sort of "official" email address would benefit our Web
> Openers in making contact with web properties to help resolve web
> compatibility issues.
>
> Now, my own points. Would @mozilla-reps.org or @reps.mozilla.org addresses
> sit
I wanted to call out that a similar discussion has been happening on the
compatibility mailing list.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.compatibility/tfH3ndokti4
To summarize, some sort of "official" email address would benefit our Web
Openers in making contact with web properties
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 6:29:17 AM UTC-6, William Quiviger wrote:
> From a Mozilla Reps perspective, the rationale of having a @mozilla.org email
> is primarily a practical one, in that as official representatives of Mozilla
> in their region, having an official mozilla email makes outreach
>From a Mozilla Reps perspective, the rationale of having a @mozilla.org email
>is primarily a practical one, in that as official representatives of Mozilla
>in their region, having an official mozilla email makes outreach and
>communication easier with local insitutions, potential partners, etc
The why of this email proposal isn't clear to me and I'd like to think through
how it supports the million Mozillians goal. There seems to be two different
thoughts:
* Is it to recognize an active and/or trusted group of people for their
contribution? (The badge of honor model)
* Is it someth
Getting back to emails, because I don't think you need to opt in to this
inner circle to be able to speak for mozilla or deserve an email - what
would be the abuse of the email that could get it revoked? Does the
vouching system still work for emails if there isn't some responsibility
attached?
O
On 04/11/13 18:54, Majken Connor wrote:
> The outlier is someone who is bringing a friend into Mozilla, they will
> already have personal trust. I think another time limit might be useful
> here. Must have had a Mozillians account for at least x amount of time.
> Sometimes a timeline is artificial,
El 04/11/13 19:54, Majken Connor escribió:
> I think we don't necessarily need to worry about moving the bar for the
> first half because that is built in to the second half. I'm not going to
> agree to put my contributions to Mozilla on the line for someone who I've
> seen posting on a newsgroup o
El 04/11/13 20:02, Mike Hoye escribió:
> For what it's worth, we've had at least one occurrence - the
> Thunderbird announcement - where an email sent only to the "vouched
> mozillians" list found its way to the usual valley-rag techblogs
> within hours.
Well, I think the case you are referring to
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
I feel confident in asserting that many of the vouches on
mozillians.orgwere just "I know this person!"
But I also think simply adding the responsibility aspect of vouching, ie "I
know this person!" + "I agree to be held responsible for their actions for
x period of time" would have made a giant i
On 01/11/13 22:39, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> To me vouching is more than just signaling someone has made a contribution
> to Mozilla but that they have made a sustaining contributions and deserve
> the trust of the community and project.
But that's the thing - you say "to me". I would assert that
> Or looping back we seem to be throwing out some of the work mrz and Reps
> have done, should we ask those people who already did this work to alter
> their proposal to reflect what's been discussed here?
The entire intent of the draft proposal was to start this very conversation!
Without any d
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 01/11/13 16:59, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> > All this vouching seems simply like adding trivial work for others. I
> > suggest we create a group on Mozillians.org and add a auto-expire feature
> > and renew membership feature to the plat
Benjamin,
I agree it's a sort of busy-work, but I'm sure it will happen faster than
adding a feature into Mozillians.
I don't think we should be worried about initial seeding being slow. Slow
is good, it lets us see if our plan had blind spots. Things take a LOT more
time to get into motion than
On 01/11/13 16:59, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> All this vouching seems simply like adding trivial work for others. I
> suggest we create a group on Mozillians.org and add a auto-expire feature
> and renew membership feature to the platform that all group admins can
> choose to enable.
>
> People wan
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 29/10/13 15:05, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> > I understand the need to do downsides, but this seems like a very
> > harsh penalty. It would be easy to vouch for someone at some point,
> > and at some point 5 years in the future, that someon
On 30/10/13 17:50, Majken Connor wrote:
> I think something to keep in mind is that we don't have to find THE 20
> people who are best for this group,
Right.
> I also want to suggest maybe there needs to be a time period before a
> person can vouch for new members? I think this is also normal in
On 29/10/13 15:05, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> I understand the need to do downsides, but this seems like a very
> harsh penalty. It would be easy to vouch for someone at some point,
> and at some point 5 years in the future, that someone does something
> bad and gets banned. Is it still fair for the
On 2013-10-30 3:08 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
I also want to suggest maybe there needs to be a time period before a person
can vouch for new members? I think this is also normal in this type of trust
system and it also minimizes the damage t
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
> I also want to suggest maybe there needs to be a time period before a person
> can vouch for new members? I think this is also normal in this type of trust
> system and it also minimizes the damage to the trust structure if someone
> makes it
I think something to keep in mind is that we don't have to find THE 20
people who are best for this group, we simply need to find A set of 20
people who fit the criteria and who are willing to plow through a whole
bunch of these requests. So we are definitely not saying that these 20
people are the
On 29/10/13 15:15, David Ascher wrote:
>>> My contention is that these two groups could be the same group.
>
> The first is an ACL restriction among many. It’s not clear to me why
> we want to prioritize one permission (‘hear some kinds of news’)
> above ‘access to VPN’, ‘access to the t-shirt da
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
Hi,
PMJI.
[short]
I've read this thread and I'm getting the impression that '@mozilla.org
for every Mozillian' is something that really shouldn't be happening
no matter how some feel it should. IOW, just give '@mozilla.org' to
Mozilla reps.
[/short]
[long]
There is an idea: '@mozilla.org' to e
El 29/10/13 15:01, Gervase Markham escribió:
> Assuming we use the definition of Mozillian as someone who:
>
> * believes in the mission
> * does something to actively advance it
> * interacts with the Mozilla community
>
> then I think that would be a large mistake.
>
> Having an email address @pr
I wanted to add that I had an opportunity to talk to a few staff from the
Portland office who have been following this and they like the idea.
One suggested that all staff and contributors should use @mozilla.org
On Oct 29, 2013 7:05 AM, "Gervase Markham" wrote:
>
> On 25/10/13 18:30, Monica Che
> > I should also point out that in the future, it may become very
> > important to be able to distinguish official email from Mozilla as a
> > project, versus someone who is affiliated with Mozilla (as paid staff
> > or not).
>
> Email always comes from a person, it never comes from an organizati
On Friday 2013-10-25 19:05 +0300, Nikos Roussos wrote:
> Although I agree in principle with the "why only employees and reps?"
> argument I think we should consider this as a try out phase. See how
> that goes and how we can expand this to all active contributors.
> Hopefully by that time we'll hav
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
confusing!) by two existing members. And if th
On Oct 29, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> The first is that we want to have a discussion forum where we can talk
>> about sensitive subjects in a group larger than "employees" but smaller
>> than "public". We've needed this for ages, and we still need it. And we
>> need to define w
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> At the Festival, I was encouraged to elaborate on this. I've talked
> about my idea elsewhere, but here it is again:
>
> There are now at least two reasons we need to define a subset of
> Mozillians who are trusted by the community.
>
> The
On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 14:01 +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 25/10/13 17:31, William Quiviger wrote:
> > Yes, the rationale was precisely to have a phased approach and start
> > distributing @mozilla.org to staff and Reps only, see how that it
> > went and then include everyone once we were confi
On 25/10/13 13:16, Gervase Markham wrote:
> At the moment, a discussion is going on about how we can create a set of
> trusted people who can take part in Mozilla-internal discussions on
> topics that we don't yet want shared with the press. It seems like the
> problem of who gets @mozilla.org emai
On 25/10/13 18:30, Monica Chew wrote:
> I think it's a wonderful idea to give Reps and other contributors
> email addresses. Can I suggest mozillians.org instead of mozilla.org,
> though? mozilla.org is not sufficiently distinguishable from
> mozilla.com to avoid confusing paid staff from not, and
On 25/10/13 17:31, William Quiviger wrote:
> Yes, the rationale was precisely to have a phased approach and start
> distributing @mozilla.org to staff and Reps only, see how that it
> went and then include everyone once we were confident about the
> process.
>
> So the aim was always to eventually
erational group running the
> mozilla project before the Foundation existed. In the short period when the
> Foundation existed and the Corporation did not, hires at that time probably
> got @mozilla.org addresses, too.
>
> I joined shortly after the Corporation was incorporated, and at
No matter if budget is going to be a problem I do see the point in actually
budgeting for it and understanding the implementation costs. That might
inspire us to think of different implementations that work out better for
us, and at least uncover problems that need to be solved or decisions that
ne
ortly after the Corporation was incorporated, and at that
point, @mozilla.org addresses weren't given out anymore. Even for
functional stuff like l10n@.
Axel
- Original Message -
Hello Governance,
I'm writing today to put forward the following proposal for @mozilla.org
email a
orward the following proposal for @mozilla.org
email addresses for Mozilla Reps as outlined here:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Mrz/mozilla-org
Additionally, I would like to highlight the following policy that the
ReMo Council has put together in regards to email addresses for R
El 25/10/13 23:26, Monica Chew escribió:
> No, I don't. I mean there is a useful distinction between the follow 2
> classes of mail:
>
> 1) Official email from Mozilla, the organization, for things like summit
> announcements, or service/product announcements.
> 2) Email from people affiliated wi
On Oct 25, 2013, at 6:14 PM, cshie...@mozilla.com wrote:
> I'm not trying to shoot this down, I want to make sure that we all are aware
> that this can quickly become a significant investment, and then how do we
> scale it to the vision that Mitchell gave us for our contributor base in the
> y
On Oct 25, 2013 10:15 AM, wrote:
>
> On Friday, October 25, 2013 1:03:09 PM UTC-4, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> > If we just did aliases the cost would be almost nothing. Most mail
> > providers support treating aliases like a new address.
>
> In our current setup it actually is a bit more involved.
I think it should be all volunteers not just reps also
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Benjamin Kerensa
wrote:
> Hello Governance,
>
> I'm writing today to put forward the following proposal for @mozilla.orgemail
> addresses for Mozilla Reps as outlined here:
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:**
- Original Message -
> El 25/10/13 20:14, Monica Chew escribió:
> > My bad, I took this requirement from the etherpad at
> > https://remo.etherpad.mozilla.org/email-policy. My point was not to
> > distinguish between paid staff and not, but to distinguish between mail
> > from Mozilla the p
El 25/10/13 20:14, Monica Chew escribió:
> My bad, I took this requirement from the etherpad at
> https://remo.etherpad.mozilla.org/email-policy. My point was not to
> distinguish between paid staff and not, but to distinguish between mail from
> Mozilla the project and a Mozilla contributor. Th
> > I should also point out that in the future, it may become very important to
> > be able to distinguish official email from Mozilla as a project, versus
> > someone who is affiliated with Mozilla (as paid staff or not).
> The thing is that there should be nearly no distinction between a paid
> e
El 25/10/13 19:30, Monica Chew escribió:
> I think it's a wonderful idea to give Reps and other contributors email
> addresses. Can I suggest mozillians.org instead of mozilla.org, though?
> mozilla.org is not sufficiently distinguishable from mozilla.com to avoid
> confusing paid staff from not
lowing proposal for @mozilla.org
> email addresses for Mozilla Reps as outlined here:
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Mrz/mozilla-org
>
> Additionally, I would like to highlight the following policy that the
> ReMo Council has put together in regards to email addresses for ReMo:
> https://r
Yes, while I ignored the implementation in the original draft (co-drafted with
Reps and finalized at the Madrid meeting... need to give credit where it's
due), I did imagine simple email aliases vs. hosted mail accounts.
In fact, I imagined a system largely driven via mozillians.org that would
On Friday, October 25, 2013 1:03:09 PM UTC-4, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> If we just did aliases the cost would be almost nothing. Most mail
> providers support treating aliases like a new address.
In our current setup it actually is a bit more involved. We still have some
one-off accounts going b
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
