On 2013-10-29 10:14 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
We seed the group with, say, twenty or so people whose status as
Mozillians is beyond doubt. We then say that anyone else can be admitted
to the group if they are endorsed (I won't say "vouched", as it's
confusing!) by two existing members. And if that person is found to have
broken a confidence or otherwise behaved in a way which leads to loss of
privileges or access, the two people who vouched for them also lose
those privileges, for a period of six months. (Hence, tongue-in-cheek,
'Mafia' - "if you cross us, we'll come after you _and_ your parents".)
This makes endorsing someone an action with real downsides, which is the
only way to ensure that endorsements will be carefully considered, and
people only endorse people they actively trust.
If I vouch for someone in mozillians.org and they later act highly
inappropriately, nothing bad happens to me. There's no downside to me
simply vouching for anyone who asks, which makes it very easy to get
vouched for. In order to build a real web of trust, we need to change
that.
I would support this proposal. It maps well to how we handle other
forms of trust (commit access, module ownership, etc), which has served
us well as a project. I share Dirkjan's concern that timeliness needs
to be considered, however I think that can be dealt with through a
probationary period (maybe a year) after which vouchers wouldn't pay a
penalty.
My primary concern here is that, unlike the majority of open projects,
Mozilla gets a lot of press attention and coverage. Anything we do that
implies (whether correctly or not) that an individual represents Mozilla
represents a risk we should balance against the benefit we believe we'll
get from providing @mozilla.org addresses.
-- Mike
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
