e.org and so on).
Let's start a discussion on this and see where it goes!
--
Sincerly,
Benjamin Kerensa
http://benjaminkerensa.com
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
On Oct 25, 2013 9:40 AM, wrote:
>
> On Friday, October 25, 2013 11:59:39 AM UTC-4, David Ascher wrote:
> > Sure. FYI, I’m thinking of the kinds of systems that e.g. US
universities employ for alums. This stuff could easily be outsourced.
>
> There is still a cost involved.. This discussion shou
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 actuall
e where it goes!
--
Sincerly,
Benjamin Kerensa
http://benjaminkerensa.com
--
Sincerly,
Benjamin Kerensa
http://benjaminkerensa.com
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
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
Mozillians.org and add a auto-expire feature
and renew membership feature to the platform that all group admins can
choose to enable.
People wanting a e-mail can join the group and it will be administered by
the POC for adding email accounts. In order to join the group a Mozillian
much have been vouched.
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 memb
; 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?
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:23 PM, B
f 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,
iam 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 Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Nikos Roussos <
comzer...@mozilla-community.org> wrote:
&
My guess is this is anything from the value of Firefox to other tools like
Input, BMO or other bits of free software that Mozilla produces.
On Dec 16, 2013 12:21 PM, "Viinamäki Mikko" <
mikko.viinam...@students.turkuamk.fi> wrote:
>
> Dear Mozilla governors,
>
> The 2012 financial statements list
I have to say right now on Google+ and on other Social Media networks there
are lots of people not taking the announcement well. I would say this is
impacting at least a minority of our users feelings about Firefox.
A quick search of Google News shows 23 articles that talk in a negative
light abou
t 9:45 AM, Sheeri Cabral wrote:
>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Michael Kelly"
>> To: "Sheeri Cabral"
>> Cc: mozilla-governa...@lists.mozilla.org, "Benjamin Kerensa" <
>> bkere...@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesda
ke us /a/ browser with ads. Both Safari and Opera
> have done this for a very long time now.
>
> -- reuben
> ___
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
--
Benja
uot;Community" in the article it's probably unfortunate
> > since employee ownership is also community ownership ;)
> >
> > --
> > Rubén Martín [Nukeador]
> > Mozilla Reps Mentor
> > http://www.mozilla-hispano.org
>
+1 on Leadership, Organization and Inclusion of Community.
On Apr 1, 2014 11:31 AM, "Majken Connor" wrote:
>
> It didn't make it into the townhall, so I wanted to start this discussion
> here.
>
> In the IRC backchannel, a lot of people felt the right tactic to handle
the
> current issue is to te
om Mozilla. Too bad for him that
>>
>> > he is of that segment of society that now has to be cast down. A White
>>
>> > Male who has beliefs about marriage that honor women. Too bad.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Total ou
I don't think Brendan blames anyone at Mozilla for his decision to leave.
You can learn some of the facts surrounding that here.
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/
On May 26, 2014 12:40 AM, "Doug Warner" wrote:
>
> For over a month now after the Bendan Eich situatio
> First though, I'd like to be clear about a couple of points:
>
> * This is not intended to be a document that people will sign.
>
If it is not signed then it is not really an agreement
> * This is not something that applies to existing contributors, just to new
> people who are joining the com
Hello Brian,
Pierros is extremely qualified but my only concern is his availability
to commit the time needed to own the module. Will availability be an
issue?
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/go
On Jun 10, 2014 11:00 AM, "Emma Irwin" wrote:
>
> "As a volunteer for our Project"
>
> 'our project' seems a bit too possessive/excluding. Perhaps 'As a
> volunteer for Mozilla' or 'As a volunteer for the Mozilla Project.
>
Yeah this seems contrary to the "One Mozilla" saying.
> What I'm havin
My thoughts are similar to other Mozillians in I do not for a second
think FIFA has any values that are consistent or even like Mozilla's
and I think this is just professional sports in general.
I also dislike the generic nature of the e-mail where it says it is
from Mozilla but nobody is the list
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> davidweldonbosw...@gmail.com schrieb:
>
>>> Frankly one reason we probably have more volunteers than the Red Cross is
>>> because of the lack of formalities.
>>
>>
>> As Janet pointed out, the Red Cross has many more volunteers than Mozilla.
I recently learned that not all Employees and Contractors are even
required to sign NDA's as we often discuss trust around contributors
it seems odd that contributors would be held to a higher standard then
employees, contractors and interns.
I do think a Employee Project Agreement would be an in
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, wrote:
>> To be clear, this gross plagiarism of David Boswell's Volunteer
>> Agreement [1] is intended to fall under the "parody" aspect of the
>> Fair Use clause. However, I am, as usual, at least half-serious. :)
>
> There is a serious point here that's worth di
> On the first part: Does that mean that as long as they are a volunteer,
if they make any agreement with Mozilla, they can't hold Mozilla
accountable to those? Or even to what we promise to them in this agreement
or elsewhere? That might not be intended but can be read that way. ;-)
>
I would rep
Chris Peterson wrote:
> On 7/24/14 5:31 AM, Rubén Martín wrote:>> Is this request sent to Google
> servers directly or Mozilla is going to have
>> a intermediate server to protect users privacy?> Do Google's terms of
>> service allow Mozilla to insert an anonymizing (and
> possibly caching) pr
Yeah it seems just changing job descriptions does not really go to the
extent of getting new hires to agree to participate with community and
meet other expectations. If modifying a job description was all it
took to get new hires to meet certain expectations surely their would
not be a need for th
I would contact Mike Hoye who has already volunteered to help smooth some
of the edges around issues impacting Thunderbird's direction. I would also
include the Thunderbird Module and Peers in these discussions and they
should be able to provide some answers.
I know Mike Conley one of the Thunderb
So apparently all release drivers for Thunderbird and Module Owners and
Peers have access to this data.
Might it make sense to become a member in one of those groups to have
access? I believe you were already proposing a change in module ownership?
On Aug 26, 2014 4:23 PM, "Kent James" wrote:
>
show those users who care a lot about personal privacy that it
> still matters to us, and that we're still putting the work into giving
> people the option of saying no.
>
> - mhoye
>
> ___
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.moz
is
> more of a starting point to make it a living document that is clear and
> helpful.
>
> Thanks,
> Mika
> ___
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://l
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 29/10/14 18:33, Rubén Martín wrote:
>> Clarification: Reps program does use the module system, module owner and
>> peers actively oversee the work of the Council and the overall program's
>> health with defined procedures where Module ow
ege can't be viewed as "good enough."
>> ___
>> governance mailing list
>> governance@lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Soumya Deb*
> *http://debs.io <http://de
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.
Mozilla is not the LGBT Community and Brendan Eich stepped down voluntarily.
You can get accurate facts on his resignation here
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/
On Dec 9, 2014 1:57 AM, wrote:
>
> I just got a message when I opened Mozilla asking me to donate.
>
>
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Mike Hoye wrote:
> 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
> rea
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Robert Accettura
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 2014, at 9:58 PM, Benjamin Kerensa
> wrote:
> > How will you decide which feeds are dead? Are we talking dead as in the
> RSS
> > feed errors or dead as in no recent content (i
On Dec 15, 2014 10:14 AM, "Leo McArdle" wrote:
>
> On 15/12/14 13:24, Axel Hecht wrote:
> > On 12/13/14 11:07 PM, Larissa Shapiro wrote:
> >> I do wonder if Planet could have tags beyond "mozilla" eventually, for
> >> topic related streams? I know I struggle to keep up.
> > I think that "keeping u
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Nikos Roussos wrote:
>
> On 12/15/2014 04:58 AM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> >> To that end, we are going to propose that Planet have a participation
> >> policy including words to the effect that "in discussing contentious or
&g
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Mike Connor wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After a bit of an IRC sidebar with mhoye, I wanted to reframe this
> conversation to a concise wording that (I think) reflects the core intent
> of the Planet peers:
>
> ===
>
> We're planning to move to an explicit tag mo
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 15/12/14 18:59, Mike Connor wrote:
> > We're planning to move to an explicit tag model, where we will
> > publish only posts that are explicitly tagged as Mozilla. This is
> > not intended to exclude off-topic content, but to encourag
hub.com/mozilla/legal-docs/commits/master/Websites_ToU/en-US.md
>
> Best,
> Mika
> ___
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
--
Benjamin Kerensa
Mozilla Rep
http://mozillausa.org
__
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 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
Adding Sid Stamm who is probably in the best position to provide a solid
answer.
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:35 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
> hope you can underst
Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Gervase Markham schrieb:
>> You continue to assume, without backing up the claim, that saying that
>> someone is wrong about something must make them feel unwelcome or
>> excluded or discriminated against. This seems to be the fundamental
>> point of disagreement, and the one
Al Billings wrote:
> On 1/7/15 4:01 PM, Leo McArdle wrote:
>> On 07/01/15 23:33, Al Billings wrote:
TL;DR Why can't we agree to disagree on topics and page down instead of
censoring individual views of Mozillians."
>>> Because I open my planet feed and see someone evangelizing their
>>> r
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Mozilla is not just a workplace. The vast majority of Mozillians aren't
> employed by Mozilla. I was a Mozillian before I became an employee, and
> I'll still be one if I ever stop being an employee. Mozilla is first and
> foremost a commun
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Majken Connor wrote:
> I know there is a bugzilla component that covers the mailing list/groups
> discussion forums. I was just quickly wondering if there is a module that
> governs them.
>
> Thanks!
>
Not specifically a "Mailing List/Group Discussion Forums" mod
eted 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, Benjamin Kerensa
wrote:
&g
All of these pings are opt-in unless your using Nightly.
On Jan 13, 2015 4:06 PM, "Un Virumbi" wrote:
>
> 12.01.2015, 18:48, "Kevin Brosnan" :
> > Yes. Though it is not on topic for this discussion group.
> >
> > Searching for Firefox disable (update ping, telemetry ping, Firefox
health report,
llian
defined first IIRC.
On Jan 14, 2015 6:54 AM, "Mike Hoye" wrote:
>
> 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 n
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
Hello All,
What does everyone think about logging irc channels for both transparency
and accountability but also to ensure compliance
with our participation guidelines? I know some channels have decided to
public log on their own starting this year
but we do not have an across the board policy.
O
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:50 PM, fantasai
wrote:
> On 01/23/2015 03:43 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> What does everyone think about logging irc channels for both transparency
>> and accountability but also to ensure compliance
>> with our p
ncy and
> accountability these days?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Benjamin Kerensa
> wrote:
>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> What does everyone think about logging irc channels for both transparency
>> and accountability but also to ensure compliance
&
bouncer but once I see it... It is gone and it
would be nice to be able to point back to a discussion.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:14 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Friday 2015-01-23 12:43 -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> > What does everyone think about logging irc channels
>
> I
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Yvan Boily wrote:
> Not to beat a dead horse here, but again, there is a difference between
> "This is a public service, that might be logged" and "This is a public
> service that is logged and published."
>
> One is a notice that people might be logging, the othe
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Yvan Boily wrote:
> I received a message off list responding to my comments. Rather than
> duplicating a message intended off-list (ironically referencing the need to
> avoid private discussions :D), I will summarize the points and address them.
>
> 1. irc loggin
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Ravi Pina wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:34:16PM -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Yvan Boily wrote:
> >
> > Can I ask if you think mailing lists should be private?
> > https://lists.mozilla.or
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> I should perhaps clarify, though, that I don't really think there's a
> need for a project-wide policy to enforce that channels must be
> logged, and that's probably what Yvan is reacting strongly to. Most of
> the important public IRC channel
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Yvan Boily wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Benjamin Kerensa > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Gavin Sharp
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I should perhaps clarify, though, that I don'
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Benjamin Kerensa
> wrote:
>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> What does everyone think about logging irc channels for both transparency
>> and accountability but also to ensure compliance
>
https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
> > Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
> > What I was walling in or walling out,
> > And to whom I was like to give offense.
> > - Robert Frost, Mending Wal
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Yvan Boily wrote:
> No, the scope is clearly stated with "Mozilla’s Data Privacy Principles
> continue to inform how we build our products and services, manage user
> data, and select and interact with partners – while shaping our public
> policy and advocacy work
e who are there to catch a conversation or those who persistently
stay connected and log privately.
>
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Trevor Saunders
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 05:51:01PM -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>> > It can be if we want to
channels by default and recorded by default.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Benjamin Kerensa
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Majken Connor wrote:
>> I skimmed, so forgiveness please in advance if I am repeating points already
>> made...
>>
>> This isn&#x
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
> On 2015-01-25 1:31 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
>>
>> 1. Trying to keep up with a project by reading IRC logs (or watching
>> meeting videos) is a lot to ask for many people. This takes a lot of time
>> and someone could end up spending all their d
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Patrick Cloke wrote:
> On 1/26/2015 12:48 PM, Larissa Shapiro wrote:
>>
>> I would also like bots to notify people when they join a public channel
>> that it is being logged. I think that’s already happening in some places.
>
>
> Please don't do this. There's alrea
The justification is that we are doing it wrong by defaulting to
closed decision making where not everyone can transparently see all
the discussions we have in the project.
Great post that talks about this discussion btw and the importance of open:
http://stormyscorner.com/2015/01/working-in-the-o
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Mike Hoye wrote:
> 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 proje
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
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 som
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Yvan Boily wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Benjamin Kerensa
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Byron Jones wrote:
>> > Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The de facto standard p
that coupled with
the anonymity of this
email really makes this email disruptive versus productive.
“we also would like to thank Benjamin Kerensa, Emma Irwin and Majken
Connor for all
the efforts they take in making things more transparent.“
Thanks for appreciating our efforts for transparency but on
This seems like what the Mozilla Guides program does. Also what is the need
for a module for a Facebook group?
We have a lot of initiatives at Mozilla and not a module for everyone.
Generally there should be some reasoning behind the need for a module.
Are you working with the participation team
lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
--
Benjamin Kerensa
http://benjaminkerensa.com
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
We are talking about radical participation this year as a organization
priority but there are still a lot areas of the project and to Mozilla
itself that are not visible to core contributors (I like to call it the
Great Wall of Mozilla) even those who are under NDA. I was recently
discussing how th
mozillians - confidential.
On Apr 13, 2015 5:25 AM, "Gijs Kruitbosch" wrote:
>
> On 13/04/2015 05:46, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>>
>> In the cases of things that truly need to be company-confidential then
>> those could still be marked but unless a strong justific
round how to
do
> that well.
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch
> wrote:
>
> > On 13/04/2015 05:46, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> >
> >> In the cases of things that truly need to be company-confidential then
> >> those could still be marked but
ones I run into and have to be cc'ed on or ask about are
>> operational stuff but not something that demands company-confidential
over
>> mozillians - confidential.
>>
>> On Apr 13, 2015 5:25 AM, "Gijs Kruitbosch"
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> O
> > I strongly agree with the sentiment that we should strive to be more open
> > where possible and where openness will help us collectively act in the
> > interests of the mission. My belief is that's going to be a much easier
> > conversation to have once we have a workable taxonomy we can look
On Apr 20, 2015 12:06 PM, "Kyle Huey" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:03 PM, David Weir
wrote:
> > Can someone update these
> >
> > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/Mozilla_Websites
> >
> > I believe Mozillians is now pierros for example
>
> You should ask the relevant teams to do this.
>
>
Currently @mozilla.org aliases and accounts are for original @mozilla.org
folks (a handful of people) and were for sometime used by foundation but
that practice stopped AFAIK otherwise they are assigned anymore. There has
been discussion over the years of allowing both contributors and projects
ins
So for a @mozilla.com account it would be best to be in touch with Mark
Banner who setup the thunderb...@mozilla.com aliases
and can put in a request for another.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:27 PM, R Kent James wrote:
> On 4/24/2015 3:43 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>
>> Currently
Thanks for all your work Gavin and I think Dave can provide leadership to
take Firefox to where it needs to go.
On Jul 13, 2015 5:58 PM, "Gavin Sharp" wrote:
>
> Almost 4 years ago, Mike Shaver handed me the reigns of Firefox module
> ownership [1]. At the time, he said:
>
> > While being an empl
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
log: http://www.bitstampede.com/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/sheppy
> Check my Availability <https://freebusy.io/esheph...@mozilla.com>
> _______
> 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
Mark has experience being both a peer and I believe owner of Thunderbird
I'm confident he will do well as owner of Loop.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:55 AM Adam Roach wrote:
> Hi, governance.
>
> I'm shifting my role around a bit, and won't be dedicating as much time
> to Loop (aka Firefox Hello)[1
gt; [4]
> https://github.com/mozilla/legal-docs/commit/c7535610c36e59d048d5138861058174c77755df
> ___
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
--
Benjamin Kerensa
http://benjaminkerensa.com
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.governance/xs7Sfyxc4As
> [3] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/websites/
> [4]
> https://github.com/mozilla/legal-docs/commit/c7535610c36e59d048d5138861058174c77755df
> ___
> governa
e folks to engage productively within the
> process. It also of course allows those who prefer a different course of
> action to be vocal. We’ve seen this before with Thunderbird. Building a
> positive response and a positive conversation will be a very useful first
> step in making a good future for Thunderbird.
>
>
> M
I'm just going to add that Mitchell's email while we u see stand what she
said I think the messaging could have been different. I'm unsure if PR was
consulted but the end result has been very negative media for Thunderbird
as a project and Mozilla across media in all countries.
I don't even know w
I'm confident that Mozilla is not going to invest to expand Thunderbird by
making any kind of server edition.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:54 AM Paul Fernhout
wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 7:47:58 AM UTC-5, Andrew Sutherland wrote:
> > The problem with Thunderbird is not that it is a ma
It's not that Mozilla cannot but that it does not see Thunderbird as having
the level potential at impacting the open web that Mozilla believes Firefox
and its other investments will.
There is already a team of community contributors that develop it.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:58 AM wrote:
> W dn
not state
the truth on why a feature was added.
We already saw tiles was a bad mistake so how many months until Mozilla
realizes Pocket was too?
--
Benjamin Kerensa
http://benjaminkerensa.com | @bkerensa on Twitter
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 1:47 AM a wrote:
> Please don't include p
, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:28 AM David Rajchenbach-Teller <
dtel...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 15/12/15 18:27, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> > I agree and it's disappointing when the first thread on Pocket was
> > discussed here Mozilla said there was no money deal to integr
n.
>
> Best regards,
> David
>
> On 15/12/15 18:37, »Q« wrote:
> > In <news:mailman.38.1450200542.21136.governa...@lists.mozilla.org>,
> > David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
> >
> >> On 15/12/15 18:27, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> >>> I agre
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
