The "twitter english" suggestion seems an elegant solution here, and I
support it.
I also like this solution because it solves for localization, rather
than raising localization as a roadblock to an idea one doesn't like.
Some of the discussion in this last round seems good to me, the shorter
We want more people to understand the Mozilla mission, identify with it
and take action to move the mission forward. That pushes us to be
inclusive, and provide a welcome, encouragement and legitimacy to
people across a range of different levels of engagement.At the same
time, we want a w
hey that is awesome! painful to imagine doing by hand, that's for sure!
mitchell
On 12/3/13 7:24 PM, David Ascher wrote:
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@N02/1119916583
Hi folks
I've got two messages on this topic. The first is the question of why a
"million mozillians." In this one I want to address the concerns were
making a definition to get to a number, and that the idea is
self-servicing. The second msg will be a follow up to my post with the
diagram
#x27;s the "big tent;" and we'd identify the core group with
a different term.
I imagine that could feel disconcerting to some, but I'm coming to like
the idea.
Thoughts?
Mitchell
On 12/6/13 4:49 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
Hi folks
I've got two messages on this topic. The
f identifing the key participants in our activities.
mitchell
On 12/6/13 5:59 PM, David Ascher wrote:
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 m
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
gerv and i used to do this long ago
ml
On 5/22/14 9:21 AM, Mike Connor wrote:
I like the idea of publishing redacted-if-necessary notes. We're already
producing notes for the existing meetings, I'm sure we could strip out any
restricted content relatively easily as a "what's going on" checkpoi
thanks!
mitchell
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> OK, I have updated https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/Other#Rhino
> accordingly. Please feel free to adjust the information there (peers,
> source directory, Bugzilla component, URL, discussion group, etc.).
>
> To adjust the
Hello
Benjamin Smedberg pinged me to say that he would find it useful if I
were to implement the idea of Emeritus Module Owners. I also suspect
this would help existing module owners feel recognized and thus better
about passing on ownership when they should. Thanks to Benjamin for the
pus
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
ex
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
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 stemm
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
On 10/21/15 2:17 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 6:06 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
When a Module Owner is also a Mozilla employee who then leaves Mozilla, it
seems prudent that their Module Ownership is relinquished.
I would be very uneasy with this being the default. Module Own
On 10/20/15 9:04 AM, Myk Melez wrote:
[snip]
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, mu
This is a long-ish message. It covers general topics about Thunderbird
and the future, and also the topics of the Foundation involvement (point
9) and the question of merging repositories (point 11). Naturally, I
believe it’s worth the time to read through the end.
1. Firefox and Thunderbird
If people have questions or want to somehow help out
themselves, I'd be happy to discuss.
ms
On 2015-11-30 4:11 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
This is
ect the Mozilla Thunderbird brand and trademark, and that a good governance structure is proposed for any independent Thunderbird that results.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/thunderbird/2015/02/thunderbird-usage-continues-to-grow/
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:11 PM,
On 12/1/15 12:21 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
7. Some Mozillians are eager to see Mozilla support community-managed
projects within our main development efforts. I am also sympathetic to this
view, with a key precondition. Community
This is indeed the same discussion, and we continue to share the same
difference in viewpoints and appropriate action.
Also, I note that the point of my post is that relying on shared
infrastructure -- by which I meant build and release, etc -- doesn't
make sense. The question of whether Mozi
Foundation and ask if they are
interested.
It seems to me that Thunderbird might be a good addition to
their
LibreOffice productivity suite.
Am 30.11.2015 um 22:11 schrieb Mitchell Baker:
> This is a long-ish message. It covers
to The Document Foundation and ask if they are interested.
It seems to me that Thunderbird might be a good addition to their
LibreOffice productivity suite.
Am 30.11.2015 um 22:11 schrieb Mitchell Baker:
This is a long-ish message. It covers general topics about Thunderbird
and the future, and als
I sent this post to dev.planning, firefox-dev and governance earlier
this evening, but didn't seem to land here, so am resending to .governance
mitchell
ideal followup is governance ... cross posting to reach those likely to
be interested
I'm currently the owner of the Commit Access Policy m
Over time we've made a series of exceptions to the level 3 requirements
for Sheriffs and this proposal addresses that.
The current Policy for level 3 is:
Level 3 - Core Product Access
Requirements: two vouchers - module owners or peers of code stored at
this level
The iss
ote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Mitchell Baker <mailto:mitch...@mozilla.com>> wrote:
ideal followup is governance ... cross posting to reach those
likely to be interested
I'm currently the owner of the Commit Access Policy module.
That's because I wrote the ori
I haven't heard any negative comments, so it's time to go ahead and make
this change.
mitchell
On 8/3/16 10:20 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
Over time we've made a series of exceptions to the level 3 requirements
for Sheriffs and this proposal addresses that.
The current Policy
In August I wrote noting that I'm currently the owner of the Commit
Access Policy module and that this should change. A discussion ensured
about the range of issues we should now consider given decentralized
version control, and that even a "firefox commit access" policy needs to
deal with cod
agh, that's Mike ConnOr, of course!
mitchell
On 10/24/16 11:13 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
In August I wrote noting that I'm currently the owner of the Commit
Access Policy module and that this should change. A discussion ensured
about the range of issues we should now cons
I wonder -- should the description should say anything about parts of
the module living outside the cycle collector. One example might be
what we did for browserID, where the description notes this (see the
last bullet point below)
Description:
-- Server Code;
-- Server deployment (
Here's where I think we are.
We have a community that's growing quickly. The volunteers are growing
and the employees are growing. As a project we've grown so much that
the old way of "everybody scratches their own itch" and we do some
coordination is not enough. Also, we're in a very comp
For many years I lead Mozilla to be very conservative about getting
involved in policy issues. I was concerned we would end up being
US-centric and would spend huge amounts of resources before getting much
result.
I believe it's time to adjust this view and do a bit more policy work.
Our fo
Over the years we've identified a few specific roles at Mozilla. These
are described in the Roles and Responsibilities document
(http://www.mozilla.org/about/roles.html). I'd like to update this
document in general to reflect the Mozilla project today. That's a task
that will take some work
Wow, this is a great tip. Thanks! I'm temped to adopt it ver batim.
It's great. and I like the idea of open source projects using standard
techniques and practices.
many thanks!
mitchell
On 11/7/12 7:30 PM, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
I think this is a great idea that has some precedent in the
isn't quite it.
mitchell
On 11/7/12 7:50 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
Wow, this is a great tip. Thanks! I'm temped to adopt it ver batim.
It's great. and I like the idea of open source projects using standard
techniques and practices.
many thanks!
mitchell
On 11/7/12 7:30 PM, Lawre
We'll need a description of the Emeritus-like status. I've put
"emeritus" in brackets below because we should perhaps find another word
Also, the Module Ownership Module looks to be the right place to manage
this status. That gives us a known set of people to address questions
and issues.
some
experience. Or we could make a theory and test it.
I can drive item 1. If you've got a particular interest in Item 2, and
actually some time to think about it, please let me know and we can do
some brainstorming.
On 11/9/12 7:58 AM, Jason Duell wrote:
On 11/07/2012 10:50 AM, M
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 finally get to it now.
This includes things like: looking at our policies (which I wrote a
decade or so ago) and seeing if and how they need to be updated,
figuring out how to appr
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 finally get to it now.
This includes things like: look
mitchell
On 11/20/12 5:50 AM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
I've found there are two different ideas that I may have confused.
So, theres a Revised Proposal below!
One idea is a way of identifying someone who was a module owner /
community leader but no longer is. That's a factual matter.
T
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 Module notes this, and also makes it easier to know
where to g
Discussion on this change has been positive, so let's go ahead and make
it official.
Thank you Asa, for starting this module, for your interest in the topic,
and for empowering a new owner to lead. I'm going to add a new role to
the Mozilla Roles and Responsibilities page of "Former Module Ow
OK, we'll create a Public Policy Module as specified in the prior
message, *except* that we'll create a dedicated place for discussions
other than this list.
Harvey has told me he'd like to start with Alex Fowler as a peer.
Thank you Harvey and Alex for taking this on.
mitchell
On 12/26/12 5
Harvey mentioned in a prior post that he is eager to create a group
committed of people with particular expertise who have agreed to assist
Mozilla with their area-specific expertise. We're calling this group
Area Expert Advisors. Participation in the module would of course be
open, just lik
n 2013-01-09, at 12:25 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
Harvey mentioned in a prior post that he is eager to create a group committed
of people with particular expertise who have agreed to assist Mozilla with
their area-specific expertise. We're calling this group Area Expert Advisors.
Participation
I'd loved to see a bit of discussion from the folks involved in the idea
of having of all of these services in one module.It might be the
right thing but i'd love to hear the pros and cons.
mitchell
On 3/5/13 8:02 PM, Mike Connor wrote:
My belief is that this is not a submodule for Fenn
On 4/10/13 2:04 PM, Randell Jesup wrote:
What's the correct way to indicate this in the Modules wiki pages? (An
existing sub-module to point at would be fine.)
Each of the links below includes sub-modules:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/FirefoxOS
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/Activit
I'm going to try to respond to a bunch of the topics that were raised in
various messages:
1. morgamic, awesome that this effort is underway. It is needed, and
great to see the team doing this.
2. Something very clear and specific like "Mozilla Websites" seems best
to me. I would not use
On 5/20/13 2:11 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 17/05/13 13:14, Mitchell Baker wrote:
6. My suggestion for the Mozilla web properties:
a: you go ahead and make the modules
b:you note a code and a content owner, as we have long done for
mozilla.org
leaving the content owner blank
another +1 from me. thanks!
ml
On 5/21/13 10:57 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 20/05/13 17:30, Fred Wenzel wrote:
I'll go ahead and add a "content owner" column to the document and work
with the (prospective) module owners to fill them in. Then we'll see if
there's even much confusion at all.
On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 6:17:53 AM UTC-7, Patrick Finch wrote:
> Hello Governance folks,
>
> As part of the our work on diversity and inclusion within Mozilla
> communities, Emma Irwin and I have a proposal to rearticulate the main
> principle of Mozilla’s governance statement. This proposa
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 6:52:39 PM UTC-7, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 6/1/18 7:36 PM, Emma Irwin wrote:
> > I’ll ensure at least one panel question comes from what has been shared
> > here - and if you can’t make it, you have my commitment to follow-up with
> > you after that call with recordin
52 matches
Mail list logo
