On 29/10/13 15:15, David Ascher wrote: >>> 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 > …’.
Working out a trusted set of people for a discussion is a _social_ problem. Yes, technically, it's a permissions bit somewhere, but the difficult problem is deciding who gets it. The other things you list are much more prosaic and there are more obvious criteria for deciding who gets access to the t-shirt database (people who need to know in order for t-shirts to be shipped, and no-one else) than deciding who gets to take part in confidential discussions in a project which strives for openness but sometimes has to be non-public about some things. > 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). If we decide @mozilla.org email addresses are for life, then I'd be happy with the exit criteria for the two groups being different. But it still makes sense to me to unify the entry criteria. However, that sense fundamentally rests on my belief that we should give @mozilla.org email addresses to trusted people. If the consensus is we should be more generous than that, then yes, the criteria will need to be different. Gerv _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
