On 19/04/13 20:34, Gavin Sharp wrote: > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Gervase Markham <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't think that "the status quo" is that "the technical owner is the >> final decision-maker", which would be implied if we created these >> modules to cover each web property without at least a slot for "content >> owner". > > That implication is an existing issue with all of our existing code > modules.
But a module like "Layout" doesn't have content (at least, in the same sense :-). > I don't really have a objection to adding a "content owner" > slot for these, but if that is contentious or if there is doubt about > how that should be implemented across all of our module definitions, I > don't think it should hold up putting this information in the wiki. I don't think it _applies_ to most of the rest of our module definitions. Most websites (although not all; something like input.mozilla.org where all the content is user-generated might be an exception) have human-readable curated content separate from their technical implementation. I can't think of a core code module which has this issue. My concern is this: if we anoint technical maintainer/responsible person X as the module owner of foo.mozilla.org, I would be concerned if they then "pulled rank" on /de facto/ content owner Y regarding a content change. If we can say explicitly when we put up this info that it is without prejudice to determining the relationship between technical owners and content owners, then that might be OK. Gerv _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
