This newsgroup or "governance"?
Mitchell Baker
there are a bunch of topics about organization and governance to be
discussed. mconner has raised a couple here. I have a couple more for
discussion:
one about principles of decision-making
updating module ownership
role of employment
and one or two others not well forumlated here
I hope people read these and comment on them, which argues for this
newsgroup. But there really aren't dev planning so much as how we
organize ourselves and the project, and so I think more logically in the
governance newsgroup, which currently has no traffic. The
governance newsgroup also means people who care about how we organize
ourselves don't need to follow all the dev planning discussions
What do you prefer? would you subscribe to governance if that's where
these discussions occurred?
mitchell
Axel Hecht
I surely would. If follow-up would work on the mail gateway (no bug
filed, bad me), I'd suggest cross-posting here and in .governance with
follow-up set to governance, but I had mixed experiences with that with
.l10n and .planning, basically forking the discussion into the
newsgroups guys in .planning and the mailing list guys in .l10n.
Axel
Chris Ilias
> I surely would. If follow-up would work on the mail gateway (no bug
> filed, bad me),
It probably would have been a dup of bug 334171, anyway.
> I'd suggest cross-posting here and in .governance with
> follow-up set to governance, but I had mixed experiences with that with
> .l10n and .planning, basically forking the discussion into the
> newsgroups guys in .planning and the mailing list guys in .l10n.
Followup-To only applies to newsgroups, not email. The email equivalent
would be Reply-To, which requires an email address.
Setting both the followup-to and the reply-to should cover everyone.
For example:
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.planning,mozilla.governance
Followup-To: mozilla.governance
Reply-To: gover...@lists.mozilla.org
--
Chris Ilias
mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
Mozilla links <http://ilias.ca>
(Please do not email me tech support questions)
Benjamin Smedberg
> I hope people read these and comment on them, which argues for this
> newsgroup. But there really aren't dev planning so much as how we
> organize ourselves and the project, and so I think more logically in the
I don't see what value the new m.governance has over this newsgroup. The
fewer groups the better. But of course if you decided to move discussion
there, I would subscribe.
--BDS
Jonas Sicking
I sort of agree here. Of course "the fewer the better" is an
oversimplification, but planning and governance seems close enough that
most people would want to register to both anyway.
/ Jonas
beltzner
> I sort of agree here. Of course "the fewer the better" is an
> oversimplification, but planning and governance seems close enough that
> most people would want to register to both anyway.
I'm all for consolidation along lines of interest. I don't, however,
think that mozilla.governance and mozilla.dev.planning are
thematically aligned 1:1.
There's a good deal of overlap, of course, but I see this
(mozilla.dev.planning) group focused on planning as it relates to
product development related issues, providing a forum for:
- meeting announcements for mozilla projects
- service announcements of interest to mozilla developers
- product planning milestone announcements & discussion
Whereas mozilla.governance would be more about the organizational
structure of the Mozilla Project and Community, without a direct focus
on the product and code deliverables, providing a forum for:
- proposals & discussions about mozilla.org organizational structure
- policy (IP, licensing, openness, etc) discussion for mozilla.org
- board nominations and meeting minutes
- community governance issues and discussions
cheers,
mike
--
/ mike beltzner / phenomenologist / mozilla corporation /
Mitchell Baker
This makes me wonder about people who are interested in how we operate,
but not in Firefox or Thunderbird particularly. These could be folks
working on other projects that exist now or might exist. And it might
involve questions like: "what non-coding activities should we identify
as analagous to "modules?" That's a bit far from dev planning.
This pushes me towards the governance newsgroup.
Thanks for the comments. I'll start with governance and see how it goes.
mitchell
Mitchell Baker
This makes me wonder about people who are interested in how we operate,
but not in Firefox or Thunderbird particularly. These could be folks
working on other projects that exist now or might exist. And it might
involve questions like: "what non-coding activities should we identify
as analagous to "modules?" That's a bit far from dev planning.
This pushes me towards the governance newsgroup.
Thanks for the comments. I'll start with governance and see how it goes.
mitchell
Mitchell Baker
This makes me wonder about people who are interested in how we operate,
but not in Firefox or Thunderbird particularly. These could be folks
working on other projects that exist now or might exist. And it might
involve questions like: "what non-coding activities should we identify
as analagous to "modules?" That's a bit far from dev planning.
This pushes me towards the governance newsgroup.
Thanks for the comments. I'll start with governance and see how it goes.
mitchell
Mike Beltzner
However the topics Mitchell is talking about seem broader, and less rooted firmly in the context of developer-related process (the lens through which mconnor sees most things, understandably!). The reason I think we need an active mozilla.governance group is precisely so that these themes can be discussed without such a code-based focus.
IMO, fwiw, etc! :)
cheers,
mike