On 11/04/13 20:11, [email protected] wrote: > maintenance of a particular web property. Since we had to do all of > this anyway, many of us saw this as an opportunity to clean up how > module ownership for these web projects is documented.
I think this is an awesome idea, and it would be great to create modules to give clarity of ownership for all these web properties. My only feedback is that I agree with the assertion that each property should have two ownership "slots" - code and content. In some cases, these will be currently filled by the same person, and that's fine. In other cases they will be different people. The module ownership system does extend to non-code things - see here for many modules of this type: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/Activities In the case of websites, it seems wise to me to make sure that both sides of the ownership question are represented. Whether we consider this two aspects of a single module, or two separate modules whose information is published in interleaved format, doesn't really matter to me. But I do think the info should be presented together. It could be that we don't yet know, or Mike doesn't have in his head, the right name for the Content slot for all sites. So we should not block the move on filling all those slots with the right names. But I think we should have the slots, and start a process to work out the names. Given the above, I would call the new category either "Websites" or "Web Properties" if the term "sites" is now considered too limiting. Gerv _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
