I agree, too. I remember the discussion a while ago about getting non-eng groups into the module system. It will be great to see follow up.
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Mark Surman <[email protected]>wrote: > My only thought is that this sounds like a good idea -- both because the > work is pressing and because I believe David will do it well. > > ms > > > On 12-11-24 12:38 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote: > >> I'm planning to add dascher as a peer to the Module Ownership Module. >> There's a lot of work to be done. I hope to finally get to it now. >> This includes things like: looking at our policies (which I wrote a >> decade or so ago) and seeing if and how they need to be updated, >> figuring out how to approach the activities which aren't currently >> included in the module system, etc. >> >> David is interested, he has good ideas, and he is already a >> thought-partner for me on governance issues. I think he'd bring new >> energy, as well as a good understanding of Mozilla and thoughtful >> approach. >> >> I may seek to add other new peers and / or observers as we go forward. >> Our current group has immense expertise; I'd like to complement that >> with people who see Mozilla from a more recent perspective. Guillermo >> (our initial and current observer) had a bunch of questions early on >> that helped me realize how opaque some areas of Mozilla can be. I'd >> like to get more of that. >> >> Please let me know if you have thoughts on any of this. >> >> Mitchell >> >> ______________________________**_________________ > governance mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/governance<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance> > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
