On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:23 AM, David Bruant wrote:
> Le 07/08/2013 12:03, Tom Farrow a écrit :
>
> I find that the idea would be beneficial to the community since
>> currently, a lot of activity is done based on trust and while having trust
>> in Mozilla is important, there should be some way
Is there another team, like Reps, that might be appropriate and able to run
this process?
Stormy
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
> How would automating work?
>
> Another question, how many people currently review and approve the
> additions and removals? It might not be a
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Florent Fayolle <
florent.fayoll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The question about using GA or not is crucial but rather a long-term
> question [1].
> What worries me the most here is the AJAX requests made at each click on
> that page.
>
> I agree with Benoit: we can't re
+1 to working on the language. It has a lot of "immediate notice, rules,
not, should not, cannot, may not, violate".
Stormy
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:23 AM, David Ascher
wrote:
> Hi David — I’m quite supportive of the general goal of clarifying the
> social contract that we have with each oth
I had to sign an agreement when I started. I know because the first one I
was given was a very boiler plate agreement that didn't make sense in the
open source world. (This was almost 4 years ago.) So Luis Villa (and others
in the legal department) wrote up a new agreement that was much more open
s
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Benjamin Kerensa
wrote:
>
> As an example, by default, when you file a request for support of an event
> to Developer Engagement, those requests now generate two bugs. One for
> tracking and another for discussion (which is done in private and flagged
> company-c
I would suggest talking to them as a first step. It's possible they'll
feel relieved to be removed. They might also be able to suggest a
replacement.
Stormy
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Gareth Aye wrote:
> Hi Governance,
>
> I was wondering about what (if any) protocol exists for removing p
Hi Gloria,
The governance list is to discuss how the Mozilla project is run, not to
announce all the initiatives, nor to discuss government policies in
particular.
However, I am not sure what list the ITU/WCIT was or should be discussed
on. Several google searches and a look at the most obvious M
fyi, GNOME just quietly added an Emeritus membership. Their
module/maintainer/membership model is different so it doesn't apply
directly.
https://live.gnome.org/MembershipCommittee/EmeritusMembers
Stormy
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> There seems to be discomfort with
Hi Nukeador,
Thanks for bringing this issue up.
It would help to understand the problem better. (And I read the original
thread.)
Is the problem that the locales are not being shipped? Or that they can't
be developed/tested/submitted?
If it's the second, what is stopping people from being able
It also sounds like it would be great to have user downloadable locales.
Maybe something to consider as part of the roadmap if it's not on there
already?
Stormy
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Pascal Finette | Mozilla
wrote:
> Dear Toni,
>
> Thank you for taking the time to explain - makes pe
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:53 AM, wrote:
>
>
> The reality is that the process by which manufacturers choose these is
> totally arbitrary in the end and doesn't give a dead monkey about
> linguistic inclusiveness. So the big question is, is Mozilla willing to
> abandon its principles viz. l10n to
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Rubén Martín wrote:
> El 22/02/13 14:48, Gervase Markham escribió:
> > So that seems like a show-stopper to me in terms of forcing OEMs to
> > include languages that they would otherwise not choose to include.
> >
> > One alternative is to provide OEMs with demog
Hi Irvin,
I hear your frustration.
I don't have an easy answer to the problem but I just wanted to let you
know that many of us Mozillians, paid staff and nonpaid staff alike, have a
lot of faith in our whole community. I know the work the community is doing
is great! On many teams that I am a pa
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
>
>
> Same here. There was quite a good amount of info on the community,
> although possibly a little high-level (it's hard to be 100% sure because I
> skimmed some of it, being familiar with it already; there's a lot of stuff
> to take in for
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
> you have to let
> them do what they're passionate about, what they have the skills to do then
> fill in the blanks.
>
Totally agree that we should all be working on things we are passionate
about! (Sometimes you can get paid employees to l
I think this list accurately reflects the people that own the code behind
the various web pages but we also need to capture the product owners and
content owners for it to be accurate.
For example, mozilla.org.
Paul McLanahan does an awesome job of coding and maintaining Mozilla.org.
If you see a
Ownership in an open source project implies that the owner can make
decisions and decide what is in and out. I thought Mozilla modules were
equivalent to open source project maintainers or owners. But if they just
have check in authority, and have to get ok from someone else first, I'd
argue they a
what
modules are or are not would be helpful to many of us.
Stormy
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Stormy Peters
> wrote:
> > Ownership in an open source project implies that the owner can make
> > decisions and decid
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Mike Connor wrote:
> In this case of these new modules, I would expect that the same
> principles would apply, and that the module owners being nominated are
> aware of their responsibilities to engage and work with key stakeholders
> across the project. I trust
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>
> My concern is this: if we anoint technical maintainer/responsible person
> X as the module owner of foo.mozilla.org, I would be concerned if they
> then "pulled rank" on /de facto/ content owner Y regarding a content
> change. If we ca
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:11 AM, 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
>
> le
od?
>
+1
(FYI, Jennifer Bertsch is for Mozilla.org, For others I'd start with ...
someone on David Tenser's team is likely SUMO, MDN is Ali Spivak,
Mozillians is William Reynolds.)
>
> Fred
>
> On Mon May 20 09:09:39 2013, Gervase Markham wrote:
> > On 20/05/13 16
23 matches
Mail list logo
