Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
MOSS 2016 Review and 2017 Strategic Plan
49 views
Skip to first unread message
Gervase Markham
Apr 26, 2017, 4:53:01 AM4/26/17
to mozill...@lists.mozilla.org
Rather later than I'd have liked, we've now published the MOSS 2016
Review and 2017 Strategic Plan:
https://blog.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MOSS_2016_review_april_25-v.1.0.pdf
Remember that the application deadline for the current round is the end
of this month - so this coming Sunday night!
Gerv
Review and 2017 Strategic Plan:
https://blog.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MOSS_2016_review_april_25-v.1.0.pdf
Remember that the application deadline for the current round is the end
of this month - so this coming Sunday night!
Gerv
christ...@gmail.com
Apr 26, 2017, 5:52:10 AM4/26/17
to mozill...@lists.mozilla.org
Hi Gerv, great stuff!
The Django REST framework section could better reflect the current state, since everything on the list apart from one item is complete, so:
> Goals: Python client (done), command line client (done), schema support (done); JavaScript client (done), docs tooling (done), WebSockets support (WIP).
Also wanted to strongly agree with this:
> Now that more awardees are finishing up the work they started, we need to encourage
them to do a blog post or other report on how it worked, speaking of MOSS in a positive
light and encouraging others to apply. This will become more of a publicity stream as
MOSS becomes established.
Absolutely. It's been really positive to be able to just crack on with the work that needs doing without close supervision, but I'd also love to see Mozilla make more marketing capital out of the grants. The grants are *hugely* impactful, and I'd like to see that reflected more publically.
For example, in my case Mozilla's funding has not only enabled the project work, but also gave me enough space to be able to quit my day job and be able to launch a successful sponsorship model for the framework that now means I'll be able to *keep* working on the project full-time, even as the work on the work on the MOSS proposal itself comes to a close.
Some thoughts that come to mind:
* Perhaps a project completion report could be a condition of the grant? Something that could either be used internally by Mozilla to assess the impact of the funding, or that could be used as the basis of a blog post.
* I wonder if having at least a notional fixed term for grant work might be worth considering? There's quite an open nature to some of the projects, it might be valuable to have a slightly more formal approach to when a project proposal is considered to be complete?
I'm don't have absolute feelings about either of there, but more just raising them as thinking points.
Thanks so much for everything!
Tom
The Django REST framework section could better reflect the current state, since everything on the list apart from one item is complete, so:
> Goals: Python client (done), command line client (done), schema support (done); JavaScript client (done), docs tooling (done), WebSockets support (WIP).
Also wanted to strongly agree with this:
> Now that more awardees are finishing up the work they started, we need to encourage
them to do a blog post or other report on how it worked, speaking of MOSS in a positive
light and encouraging others to apply. This will become more of a publicity stream as
MOSS becomes established.
Absolutely. It's been really positive to be able to just crack on with the work that needs doing without close supervision, but I'd also love to see Mozilla make more marketing capital out of the grants. The grants are *hugely* impactful, and I'd like to see that reflected more publically.
For example, in my case Mozilla's funding has not only enabled the project work, but also gave me enough space to be able to quit my day job and be able to launch a successful sponsorship model for the framework that now means I'll be able to *keep* working on the project full-time, even as the work on the work on the MOSS proposal itself comes to a close.
Some thoughts that come to mind:
* Perhaps a project completion report could be a condition of the grant? Something that could either be used internally by Mozilla to assess the impact of the funding, or that could be used as the basis of a blog post.
* I wonder if having at least a notional fixed term for grant work might be worth considering? There's quite an open nature to some of the projects, it might be valuable to have a slightly more formal approach to when a project proposal is considered to be complete?
I'm don't have absolute feelings about either of there, but more just raising them as thinking points.
Thanks so much for everything!
Tom
Gervase Markham
Apr 27, 2017, 4:52:14 AM4/27/17
to christ...@gmail.com
On 26/04/17 10:46, christ...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Gerv, great stuff!
>
> The Django REST framework section could better reflect the current
> state, since everything on the list apart from one item is complete,
> so:
Yes, sorry about that. The data for those "status updates" was gathered
> Hi Gerv, great stuff!
>
> The Django REST framework section could better reflect the current
> state, since everything on the list apart from one item is complete,
> so:
in November!
> * Perhaps a project completion report could be a condition of the
> grant?
existing grantees anyway.
> of a blog post. * I wonder if having at least a notional fixed term
> for grant work might be worth considering? There's quite an open
> nature to some of the projects, it might be valuable to have a
> slightly more formal approach to when a project proposal is
> considered to be complete?
Gerv
christ...@gmail.com
May 1, 2017, 7:16:22 AM5/1/17
to mozill...@lists.mozilla.org
>> of a blog post. * I wonder if having at least a notional fixed term
>> for grant work might be worth considering? There's quite an open
>> nature to some of the projects, it might be valuable to have a
>> slightly more formal approach to when a project proposal is
>> considered to be complete?
> I'm not against this in principle, but what problem would it solve?
The general area I was thinking about when I mentioned that was just if there are any ways that the MOSS grants could introduce a little more structure in order to help highlight either:
>> for grant work might be worth considering? There's quite an open
>> nature to some of the projects, it might be valuable to have a
>> slightly more formal approach to when a project proposal is
>> considered to be complete?
> I'm not against this in principle, but what problem would it solve?
* Helping make explicit any currently implicit expectations that Mozilla might have about the projects it takes on.
* Having some framework against which to judge if a proposal ran successfully, against its expectations.
The hands-off approach is great to work with from my side, but I don't think there'd be any harm in introducing a little more lightly documented process/expectations.
Suggested that particular aspect more just a thinking point, than as something concrete.
Cheers,
T.
0 new messages