Email addresses that die are a lot less useful than email addresses that never
die. I understand the desire to not have people misrepresent their level of
affiliation with Mozilla, but I don’t believe technology or policy can solve
that problem. Tying an address to “currently active” also means
On Oct 25, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Sheeri Cabral wrote:
> I'm all for this, too, if there's a clear directive and support for this
> infrastructure. Giving out an e-mail address is a great badge of honor, but
> even uses that are "routine" like sending out a large attachment to many
> people, can e
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 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 Nov 4, 2013, at 11:32 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Majken asked for a location for the current version of the proposal to
> build a trusted group of Mozillians. Here it is:
>
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Contribute/Trusted
It seems fairly simple to agree on the process to establish a level of
untrusted, I'm focusing on rewarding openness and community participation. E.g.
How can a problem be solved by being more participatory. Seems to help me.
--david ascher
Original message
From: Mike Connor
Date:
To: Majken Connor
Cc: mozilla-governa...@lists.mozilla.org,F
On Dec 3, 2013, at 7:12 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>
> The proposal is in the form an image, you can find it here:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/59716899@N02/11199165833/
I made a text version of your drawing (with the amazing asciiflow.com) just for
fun and for people reading this on low-ba
On Dec 6, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> And now for a different idea :-) […]
This expansive definition is definitely the more exciting one to me.
We can (and will) define various levels of mozillianness, impact, authority,
etc., but making the bar low enough that _any contribution
On Apr 4, 2014, at 8:37 AM, BRIAN LUWIS wrote:
> Thank you for the response. I heard members of the board resigned based on
> his beliefs so even if he was not fired, his freedom of speech was clearly
> not supported which is hypocritical based on what Mozilla stands for.
Those press repor
Yes I've been disappointed at the lack of fact checking in many media outlets
this week.
-- david ascher
On April 4, 2014 8:55:51 AM PDT, BRIAN LUWIS wrote:
>I'm traveling in Ethiopia and I heard it on BBC tv and also saw it
>online.
>
>Brian Luwis | 6723 Whittier A
FYI, to those folks kindly answering the barrage of emails, there is now a FAQ
addressing some of the most commonly misunderstood aspects of this:
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/
Feel free to redirect people to that document (if you choose to answer).
—david
__
I'll ask the PR team.
-- david ascher
On April 6, 2014 2:00:52 PM PDT, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>On 4/6/14 1:57 PM, David Ascher wrote:
>> FYI, to those folks kindly answering the barrage of emails, there is
>now a FAQ addressing some of the most commonly misunderstood aspects of
&
On May 22, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Christie Koehler wrote:
> Could we also use this change as an opportunity to advertise other
> channels that are public, but specific to particular projects? E.g. "Our
> project-wide meeting is no longer totally public, but here are public
> meetings you can atten
On May 22, 2014, at 5:19 AM, curtis.koe...@gmail.com wrote:
> Honestly, I am not a big fan of this change. The fact that we have an open
> and public meeting is what I think helps us build community. People can tune
> in and take a casual look at what we're up to. Find things they might be
> i
Hi David — I’m quite supportive of the general goal of clarifying the social
contract that we have with each other (assuming a bit that that’s part of the
motivation here).
This document reads like a legal document, not a social contract. Let’s find a
way to tweak the language, the framing, et
>From a communication systems design point of view (using the psychological
definitions and not technical definitions of those words), what's important
in these choices is that the privacy expectations of the people using a
medium are not violated. If people expect a communication to be private or
This feels fairly straightforward to me especially if we explicitly don't
tie the discussion to the broader mozilla.org accounts for individuals
thread. Kent, I suggest we just make a proposal to IT about the specifics
of that account management issue.
I think all we need to understand is how to
I suggest everyone (but in particular reps portal + mozillians.org) go back
to the actual use cases to determine the approach on a case by case basis.
In most social software (which I think reps + mozillians are),
jurisdictional affiliation is never actually a P1. "Finding people near
me" is; "fin
Good to see a proposal.
I think it'd be good to articulate a bit more of the plan and its purpose,
before diving into the details of module structure, which feel a bit
premature to me.
In particular, I'd like to understand:
- what kinds of websites does Mozilla offer / underwrite, and for what
p
Thanks Kensie --
I wholeheartedly support the general idea of trying to bring some cohesion
to the systems that still allow decentralized expression by volunteers of
Mozilla in their local context. We can and should make it easier for
people to create web presences and collaborative spaces where
I may be missing some background. Can you explain what you would do as
module owners that you can't do today, and/or whose code or actions you
seek to influence as module owner?
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 7:44 PM Majken Connor wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:04 PM, David A
Thanks Kenzie. This set of reasons makes sense to me.
My offer to help if/when scope changes stands.
--David
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 7:25 AM Majken Connor wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:53 PM, David Ascher
> wrote:
>
>> I may be missing some background. Can you explain what
Mitchell et al. --
I think that transferring responsibilities is a key part of the contributor
lifecycle, and we should definitely encourage it. In any system of reward or
recognition, however, we should be thoughtful about the outcomes we want
"socially encouraged," and make sure that the sy
honored and looking forward to it.
--da
Mitchell Baker wrote:
Done: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/Activities
Thanks David!
ml
On 11/24/12 6:38 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> I'm planning to add dascher as a peer to the Module Ownership Module.
> There's a lot of work to be done. I hope to f
On 2012-12-19, at 4:15 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm proposing we create an Internet Public Policy Module, as described below.
> I'm also proposing the Module Owner be Harvey Anderson. Harvey's been
> leading the global side of our public policy issues for a while now. Having
> a Mo
sounds good to me!
can we assume that the module owner has discretion to grant and revoke such an
designation? (trying to avoid extra process).
I'm assuming this is mostly an honorific, and intended to communicate to the
community in a shorthand why a module owner e.g. would take person A's opi
> 1) Do we think there are circumstances under which it is best for
> Mozilla to release software under a "no copyleft" (a.k.a. "permissive")
> license? If so, what are they?
There are two kinds of reasons motivating a copyleft requirement in a software
release: moral ones, and pragmatic ones.
I
On 2013-01-21, at 3:07 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
>
> * For projects that have strayed from copyleft licensing, was there a
> particular reason why?
My own take is that license choice is often thought of as a social signal --
it's a way of telling a community "hey, , we're like you!" (and
On 2013-01-22, at 1:33 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> Is this a straight either/or? Surely it's a "social pressure OR social
> pressure and licensing"?
indeed
> I think there are good examples, even in our space, of licensing working
> as a tool to encourage useful code publication. WebKit Core
This is a nit, but the name and/or placement in the module tree could (should?)
specify that this is a submodule of the Firefox-on-android product? I can
imagine a future where we have other things on android which have background
services, and I would expect if such a future were to occur we'd
a) the webdev technical modules have value today, will have more value when the
NOC is in place, and nobody is really objecting to them anyway ;-). I do want
to give props to morgamic et al. for realizing that the module system could be
applied to his part of the project, which will make it eas
31 matches
Mail list logo
