On 2013-04-18, at 6:06 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > 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.
How to incorporate non-technical decision makers has been a long-running discussion (I remember discussing potential models with Mitchell and Brendan as far back as 2007). While I'd love to see it resolved, I agree with Gavin that it should not block creation of these modules. I believe the status quo (which is generally working) is less risky than imposing a new model in a hurry, but I'd love to work on a better solution. I believe a key requirement of any potential module owner is a strong understanding of the context of that module. In the case of Firefox, it's clear that where issues involve more than just code it's expected that the module owner (Gavin) involve and empower key stakeholders, such as Asa. In this case of these new modules, I would expect that the same principles would apply, and that the module owners being nominated are aware of their responsibilities to engage and work with key stakeholders across the project. I trust Mike Morgan to make the right recommendations and ensure that the module owners (as currently defined) will act in appropriate ways. -- Mike _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
