On Aug 17, 2012, at 10:12 PM, Majken Connor <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it would also help the situation to talk about why things can't or > shouldn't be open. If the community at large can have a greater understanding > of the reasons behind it, it will make it easier to be more cooperative > rather than adversarial about making sure everything is as open as possible. > It's a conversation that would need to happen regularly, and repeated when > specific examples come up. > > I do like the idea of a forum closed to vouched Mozillians. I don't have a > problem with this as anyone can meet the criteria to join - be an active > contributor. There will still be lots of blog posts and other things for > potential contributors who probably aren't best off jumping straight in to > all the noise. I think the lack of this is part of why the leak happened. > There was no place to ask questions and raise fears that the community was > being left out. Discussing it on any of the mailing lists would have made it > public!
The problem with that line of thinking is that we're making the choice for the potential contributor. Whether to start slowly and only follow a couple blogs or to jump straight in to all the noise should be his choice. Maybe the data is relevant to him right now, not when he eventually gets vouched by a Mozillian. Maybe he's got that brilliant idea to solve the problem that was broadcasted to Mozillians only. I strongly believe openness is our most valuable asset – we shouldn't be throwing that away unless it's absolutely necessary, and I haven't seen a case where it is. -- reuben _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
