Proposal - mozilla.governance

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Message from discussion Proposal
Path: r9ni19205pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.mozilla.org!news.mozilla.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:02:40 -0500
Received-SPF: softfail (giganews.com: Sender is not authorized by default to
	use 'pos...@giganews.com' in 'mfrom' identity, however domain
	is not currently prepared for false failures (mechanism '~all'
	matched)) receiver=notorious.mozilla.org; identity=mailfrom;
	envelope-from="pos...@giganews.com";
	helo=mailstar.serv1.aus.datafoundry.com; client-ip=209.99.125.30
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:06:49 -0700
From: Mitchell Baker <mitch...@mozilla.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
	rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Proposal
References: <mailman.19217.1333565133.31724.governance@lists.mozilla.org>
	<mailman.19266.1333571217.31724.governance@lists.mozilla.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.19266.1333571217.31724.governance@lists.mozilla.org>
Newsgroups: mozilla.governance
To: mozilla-governa...@lists.mozilla.org
Precedence: list
Approved: governa...@lists.mozilla.org
Message-ID: <mailman.19309.1333580559.31724.governa...@lists.mozilla.org>
Lines: 69
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.245.208.166
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 4/4/12 1:26 PM, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> Mitchell, if I understand a bit better the scope of your proposal, I
> still don't see precisely how you plan to "apply" it to the Community.
> What will happen exactly? Will for instance Mozilla release that
> document saying these are values the Community "should" adhere too, or
> will all members of the Community have to "sign" such a document
> online or, or, or... ?
Daniel:  the proposal says content that "support[s] exclusion based on 
personal characteristics"  does not belong in Mozilla spaces.  It says 
nothing about signing up for any values.  It *explicitly* acknowledges 
that people have different beliefs.

As for applying it, that's a little bit related to the mechanisms re 
what to do when people feel there's a problem.    I envision that's a 
community escalation process, like any other at Mozilla.  that's the 
next discussion now that I've got a proposal posted.


>
> About your item 4, you said "Also that it's narrow enough to be
> workable across any definition of mozilla spaces" so please let me
> express two concerns.
>
> First, planet.mozilla.org is not entirely a Mozilla space... It's the
> aggregate of articles published elsewhere, often in entirely personal
> spaces, hosted outside of Mozilla, managed outside of Mozilla. So to
> deal with pmo, the CoC has to leave the field of Mozilla and reach
> personal websites of Mozillians OR restrict pmo to mozilla-related
> stuff. I think the former will be unacceptable to the vast majority,
> and the latter seems counter-productive and meaningless to me; as I
> said elsewhere, it will annoy the good guys without blocking the bad
> ones...
>
First, you're extending what I said (no content supporting exclusion" to 
"non-mozilla stuff."
To the larger point, yes -- If we decide exclusionary materials doesn't 
belong at Mozilla then someone who post such content will need to not 
syndicate to mozilla, or not syndicate that post to mozilla or do 
something else.
Maybe you're making the assumption that every personal website is a 
mozilla site?

> Second, irc.mozilla.org and the mailing-lists or google groups won't
> work well with this item 4 because access is immediate. If it's
> possible to make Google Groups' subscription based on accepting a
> Licence/CoC/whatever, it's not going to be feasible for IRC.
> Furthermore, the whole concept of IRC and its success as a mean of
> communication inside Mozilla and outside it with third-party
> developers or even users is based on its total openness and "a
> posteriori" online management by IRC ops, not on a CoC. For what it's
> worth, I would like to note that IRC has been the main communication
> channel of all Mozilla developers for fifteen years, managed only by
> the IRC Ops. No CoC. And it works fine, has always worked fine, even
> when trolls appear.

The C of C is an aspriational document that describes how we want to 
work with each other.  I guess you're assuming people will sign up to 
it.  Think about the Manifesto, as Jonathan brought up.  We don't 
require people to sign up to it before they join a mailing list.  We use 
it to determine if we're on course, etc.
>
> I also have a respectful suggestion : don't call that document a "Code
> of Conduct". It really sounds like an enforceable document distributed
> to new hires by a HR department...
>
Maybe this is the key issue -- it does seem to bring up this connection 
to it.  I think open source projects have them though.
> </Daniel>
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
