Re: Comments requested on

[Jishnu]

Hi everyone,

mrz and the IT team would like to open up IT to non-paid community
members. However, because of the privileged access sysadmins need to
do
their jobs effectively, there are unusual challenges in this
particular
area of the project around data confidentiality and good conduct. Our
planned solution to this is an agreement, to be signed by non-employed
sysadmins. My initial draft is here:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Legal/IT_Agreement

Gerv has suggested some changes and comments:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Gerv/IT_Agreement

(diffs:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=User%3AGerv%2FIT_Agreement&action=historysubmit&diff=375681&oldid=375679)

but we'd like other people's input too. Important questions are:

- Does this agreement have a "Mozilla" feel to it? If not, how can we
change it?

- Are the things we are asking of volunteers reasonable? If not, what
is unreasonable?

- Are there any areas we've not covered that we should?

Your feedback is very welcome - you can either comment here, or make a
copy of the original in your user area on the wiki and make edits to
it,
so we can see a diff, then post a link.

Thanks
Jishnu

[Gen Kanai]

Hi Jishnu,

I won't comment on the specifics of the agreement yet but can I suggest
that we have a short list at the top of the document that summarizes the
key points? The legal nature of the document means that it doesn't read
as easily as regular prose, etc. (which is on purpose, I know) but
having something clear and concise at the top of the document I think
would help a lot.

Gen
https://blog.mozilla.com/gen/

> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

--
Gen Kanai

[Gervase Markham]

On 13/12/11 05:53, Gen Kanai wrote:
> Hi Jishnu,
>
> I won't comment on the specifics of the agreement yet but can I suggest
> that we have a short list at the top of the document that summarizes the
> key points? The legal nature of the document means that it doesn't read
> as easily as regular prose, etc. (which is on purpose, I know) but
> having something clear and concise at the top of the document I think
> would help a lot.

Did you see my suggested text? It has a "tl;dr" section:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Gerv/IT_Agreement

Do you think that's the right sort of thing?

Gerv

[Gervase Markham]

On 08/12/11 18:55, Jishnu wrote:
> Gerv has suggested some changes and comments:
>
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Gerv/IT_Agreement
>
> (diffs:
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=User%3AGerv%2FIT_Agreement&action=historysubmit&diff=375681&oldid=375679)

Jishnu: I'd love to hear your comments on my changes. For example, it
seems to me that several sections I marked are redundant with each
other, or nearly so. Am I right? If not, what is the difference?

Gerv

[Axel Hecht]

I looked at some of your changes, and was happy to see that you got rid
of most of "Mozilla Group". I wish we could do that in full, too.

Mostly paranoid of that term leaking out of that document and its legal
context into general language.

Axel

[Jishnu]

On Dec 13, 5:48 am, Axel Hecht <a...@pike.org> wrote:
> On 13.12.11 14:03, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> > On 08/12/11 18:55, Jishnu wrote:
> >> Gerv has suggested some changes and comments:
>
> >>https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Gerv/IT_Agreement
>
> >> (diffs:

> >>https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=User%3AGerv%2FIT_Agreement&a...)

>
> > Jishnu: I'd love to hear your comments on my changes. For example, it
> > seems to me that several sections I marked are redundant with each
> > other, or nearly so. Am I right? If not, what is the difference?
>
> > Gerv
>
> I looked at some of your changes, and was happy to see that you got rid
> of most of "Mozilla Group". I wish we could do that in full, too.
>
> Mostly paranoid of that term leaking out of that document and its legal
> context into general language.
>
> Axel

Hi All,

First, thanks for all your comments, especially Gerv's draft - they
have been very helpful. Second, sorry for the delay. We're still
working out the kinks on implementation of this program outside of
this document. As soon as we do, I'll post on these questions and
changes.

Thanks
Jishnu

[Jishnu]

Hi All,

Thanks very much for your suggestions and questions. I've uploaded a
new version hopefully taking into accounts all your comments here:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Jishnu/IT_Agreement

Gerv - I would have forked your version but section numbers moved
around and I had multiple parts of the text to shift and modify.

A couple notes and responses:

1. Gerv - you were right about a lot of redundancies and tone, so I
got rid of language that was redundant and tightened the document up.
2. I clarified volunteer status because I want to make sure there is
no confusion about volunteering to make the web better
3. With respect to confidential information, I clarified a lot of the
definition and integrated Gerv's thoughts.
4. With respect to termination - I re-instated an automatic drop off
time of 12 months. According to MRZ, all Volunteer Sysadmins will have
short stints, unlike code contributors. It's beneficial for the
volunteer and for Mozilla not to have an agreement that just goes on
forever.
5. I added a parenthetical explaining equitable relief - hopefully it
makes sense
6. I added the signature block back - I know this is a pet peeve of
Gerv's but these contributors are different from code contributors
because they can could have access to some really confidential info
and there will be a much lower number of them. Therefore, we want to
make people read agreements and have the formality of signing the
document.

[Gervase Markham]

On 11/01/12 19:33, Jishnu wrote:
> Gerv - I would have forked your version but section numbers moved
> around and I had multiple parts of the text to shift and modify.

Hey Jishnu,

This version is much improved - thank you so much for taking the time to
consider my comments.

I only have a few further comments (none big enough to warrant me making
a new version to illustrate them):

- I assume you'll fix up the formatting of the top section in the final
document?

- "help you get situated around" is an Americanism, and might be hard to
understand for second-language speakers of English. I'd go for: "This
top section is a summary of the terms below. It is provided as an aid to
understanding - but be sure to read the entire document, because when
you sign it that indicates you accept all of it, not just the summary."

- If it doesn't affect the legality, it would be nice to say "(Sorry we
had to shout.)" after the shouty bit.

- Comma after "Because Mozilla works in the open, " - "compared to most
companies" goes with the latter part of the sentence, not the former.

- Section 8 seems to have an incomplete comparative in (A) - the greater
of $100 and what?

> 5. I added a parenthetical explaining equitable relief - hopefully it
> makes sense

That's helpful, thank you.

> 6. I added the signature block back - I know this is a pet peeve of
> Gerv's but these contributors are different from code contributors
> because they can could have access to some really confidential info
> and there will be a much lower number of them. Therefore, we want to
> make people read agreements and have the formality of signing the
> document.

Actually, I'm fine with people having to sign it. ISTR I removed the
block from my copy because formatting it in wikitext was a pain, and I
wasn't changing it.

I hope, though, that we will allow all the methods of "signing"
developed for the Contributor Agreement, such as printing, scanning and
emailing, or printing, photographing and emailing.

Gerv

[Jishnu]

Hi Gerv,

Thanks!

I'll make changes based the suggestions you made here and repost.

For your question:

> I hope, though, that we will allow all the methods of "signing"
> developed for the Contributor Agreement, such as printing, scanning and
> emailing, or printing, photographing and emailing.

Yes - those methods are fine - no change there.

Thanks
Jishnu

[Jishnu]

Hi All,

Final version of the agreement here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/IT_Agreement_Final.
The formatting is messed up because I don't know how to properly edit
the wiki yet (I keep deleting pages - if anyone's got a good tutorial,
please send over) and it's a copy/paste job from MS Word. The final
for signature doc will be pdf a la contributor agreement.

I'm sending this version to MRZ to use, but let me know if you have
comments/questions/concerns.

Thanks!
Jishnu