Ownership in an open source project implies that the owner can make decisions and decide what is in and out. I thought Mozilla modules were equivalent to open source project maintainers or owners. But if they just have check in authority, and have to get ok from someone else first, I'd argue they are not owners or maintainers.
If you want to make a major change to mozilla.org, you have to work with Jennifer Bertsch. I'd actually argue that Chris Beard owns mozilla.org if you include content, branding, etc. Then code, content, etc can all be sub modules. There are many modules that are not about code. Reps, conductors, etc. On Apr 17, 2013 11:01 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:51:00 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Definition for module owners is here: > > > > http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/module-ownership.html > > The relevant part of this is: > "A module owner's OK is required to check code into that module." > > This is about code modules, and does not affect product or content > ownership. > > For example, see Firefox: > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/Firefox > > You will see that critical product owners, such as Asa Dotzler, do not > appear in that list. Submitting these webdev projects as modules is about > code ownership and these codebases as open source projects. > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
