On Oct 25, 2013 10:15 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Friday, October 25, 2013 1:03:09 PM UTC-4, Benjamin Kerensa wrote: > > If we just did aliases the cost would be almost nothing. Most mail > > providers support treating aliases like a new address. > > In our current setup it actually is a bit more involved. We still have some one-off accounts going back to the early days that aren't just aliases, those that are aliases still go through a spam filter that we pay for (per account), and mail that comes in to be relayed to a forwarded destination still traverses infrastructure that has to scale to meet demand unless we were to point MX for all of @mozilla.org to some outsourced entity. Unfortunately, the cost is far from nothing. > > I'm not trying to shoot this down, I want to make sure that we all are aware that this can quickly become a significant investment, and then how do we scale it to the vision that Mitchell gave us for our contributor base in the years to come? > I guess I would ask what the ROI is having hundreds of volunteers with a more authentic communication channel.
I mean we have contributors right now using @gmail.com, mozilla-peru.orgetc its fragmented. Clearly other much smaller projects like GNOME saw value in such an investment. I think it brings us closer to "One Mozilla". Imagine that we have contributors putting in part time hours on a volunteer basis and they do not have an email address but a receptionist does? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
