On Oct 29, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The first is that we want to have a discussion forum where we can talk >> about sensitive subjects in a group larger than "employees" but smaller >> than "public". We've needed this for ages, and we still need it. And we >> need to define who's in and who's out, and how you decide. >> >> The second is that we want to give out @mozilla.org email addresses to >> people who we are confident will not use them to damage Mozilla's >> reputation. This is also a trust issue. As we are finding out, we need >> to define who's in and who's out, and how you decide. >> >> My contention is that these two groups could be the same group. > The first is an ACL restriction among many. It’s not clear to me why we want to prioritize one permission (‘hear some kinds of news’) above ‘access to VPN’, ‘access to the t-shirt database’, ‘access to …’. Mozilla.org email adresses has, I claim, interesting potential both for fundraising and to ‘make-people-feel-good’. (esp. if we make it easy for people to opt-in to a .sig that explains Mozilla, for example) My counter-contention is we’re more agile and impactful if we’re willing to be generous w/ the latter while correct with the former. As a thought experiment, I’d be +1 on giving jwz a mozilla.org email address, but I doubt he should be in the former ACL group (until such time as he chooses to get more involved). —da _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
