Le 11/09/2012 22:31, Rubén Martín a écrit :
> El 11/09/12 22:13, David Bruant escribió:
>> At MozCampEU 2012, I think during Leadership Panel, Brian King
>> mentionned that Mozilla (I would guess MoFo&MoCo) and the community
>> sometimes have unaligned priorities. After being asked, he gave 2
>> examples; one being that the community still maintains SeaMonkey which
>> is not a priority for MoFo/MoCo and I have forgotten the second one
>> (please complete if anyone remembers), but I remember it was another
>> valid example.
>> He added that he is no one to tell anyone not to contribute to SeaMonkey
>> and I certainly agree, but wish to provide some in-depth thoughts on
>> this topic.
> I agree that we should align on goals and priorities, and most of the
> times volunteers communities don't have enough human resources to work
> on everything, and I see logical that we encourage them to focus on
> defined priorities.
>
> This doesn't mean that if a group have tons of contributors, they can
> do more things which are not P1 for the rest.
I'm somewhat puzzled by your use of "we" and "them" like if there were
two groups to oppose. I wish we just all acted like one group. Within
MoCo/MoFo, I don't think there are different groups, some understanding
priorities and some would do not; no, there is just one group moving
toward the same direction. Why wouldn't the community just included in
that move? There are a lot of things to do, but everyone moves toward
the same set of goals.
>> I think there would be value in having dedicated volunteer contributors
>> taking part in organisation-wide strategic decisions. If we, volunteers
>> and paid employees, all take part in deciding Mozilla priorities, we
>> will have our priorities aligned as a consequence of the decision
>> process.
>> Now I understand that business requirements make that all informations
>> to make educated decisions about Mozilla at the organization level are
>> not available to the general public.
>>
>> One idea would be to invite some volunteers to take part of these
>> decisions and having them sign an NDA.
>> All details of this idea aren't figured out (especially how to choose
>> who's invited to the discussions), but I'm starting this thread as an
>> attempt to propose a solution to the problem of unaligned priorities.
> Yes, that's one of the things that are expected and there are ongoing
> discussions about how to integrate core contributors into
> decision-making/governance groups in Mozilla, for example the Reps
> Council. (Remember that reps have signed a NDA)
I'm glad to hear such discussions are ongoing and I didn't know reps had
signed an NDA, it's important to know indeed.
To a large extent, I doubt the Reps Concil is the right entity for that.
>From what can be read in the wiki [1]:
"The program, also known by its codename ReMo, aims to empower and
support volunteer Mozillians who want to become official representatives
of Mozilla in their region/locale and wherever they go."
Role of the council is described on the wiki [2] too:
"Comprised of 7 Mozilla Reps and 2 Mozilla paid-staff, the Mozilla Reps
"Jedi" council has the following duties and functions:
help provide governance and support structure to assist Mozilla Reps
worldwide
help oversee global activities
help oversee global budget management for events, swag
help nominate global membership administrator
help resolve disputes
help provide guidance and inspiration for Mozilla Reps "
Currently, at its core, ReMo is a program for volunteers to efficiently
represent Mozilla locally. It's an excellent mission but it has nothing
to do with deciding priorities about Mozilla at the organization level.
What I'm talking about is a level of participation from volunteers that
would lead to the creation of programs such as ReMo.
David
[1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/ReMo
[2] https://wiki.mozilla.org/ReMo/Structure_Governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
