To Nikos' point: Yes, the rationale was precisely to have a phased approach and start distributing @mozilla.org to staff and Reps only, see how that it went and then include everyone once we were confident about the process.
So the aim was always to eventually distribute @mozilla.org to *all* Mozillians. - w --- William Quiviger Mozilla Reps Council Member https://reps.mozilla.org/u/wquiviger/ On Oct 25, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Nikos Roussos <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 08:40 -0700, :mrz wrote: >> I also agree there's a revocation process but I'm less clear on how you >> determine someone's no longer active. > > I think David is right. Let's not try to over-complicate things. It's > better to have a well-defined policy on who gets a @mozilla.org alias > and keeps it forever (unless of course cases of abuse), than the other > way around. > > Although I agree in principle with the "why only employees and reps?" > argument I think we should consider this as a try out phase. See how > that goes and how we can expand this to all active contributors. > Hopefully by that time we'll have a way to reliable determine if a > person is an active contributor. > > ~nikos > https://mozillians.org/u/comzeradd/ > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
