On 12/08/13 15:39, David Bruant wrote: > Legally, maybe not, but there are plenty of areas where the equivalent > of the Committer's Agreement would be useful. I'm thinking of pretty > much anywhere where there are data that can't be fully public (marketing > data, websites analytics, addons source code, marketplace app source > code, Bugzilla, etc.). > Mozillians could be interested in writing and running all sorts of > analysis against these data.
I recognise some of your use cases. However, there is non-public data in Bugzilla accessible by the security group, and no-one signs anything. > Maybe a "Mozilla Data Usage Agreement"? If we thought such a thing could be usefully generic, that would be a good idea. But I wonder if we would in practice actually need different restrictions for different things. The right way to make such a thing is to take an agreement being used for one use case and try and generalise it for a second, and then a third, and so on, and see if it gets unwieldy. Writing it from scratch without use cases is a good way to waste your time on work that'll need redoing :-) > If that makes sense to provide volunteers with official communication > tools (Firefox and Mozilla Twitter/Facebook accounts for instance), > maybe a "Mozilla Official Communcation Agreement" could make sense. It'd > be interesting to see the @Mozilla account run by both employees and > non-employees for instance. It should not require a legal agreement for a non-employee to acquire sufficient community trust that they can be trusted to tweet from @mozilla. Gerv _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
