I don't oppose holding up the webdev modules. I would be happy to discuss what our modules represent. Or to hear what other people think they should represent moving forward - I think they are now different than what they were - because I think others are working on that. Maybe an FAQ on what modules are or are not would be helpful to many of us.
Stormy On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Gavin Sharp <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Stormy Peters <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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. > > In practice, it's not "complete ownership", but it's also not "just > check in authority" - it's gotten quite a bit more complicated as > Mozilla has scaled the "ownership" of products extended beyond the > people actually managing the code. As Laura notes, though, this seems > like a broader disagreement about what our modules should represent > exactly. Which is fine to discuss on its own merits, but I don't think > it's fair to suggest that resolving that disagreement is a > prerequisite for adding these webdev modules. > > Gavin > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
