I think something to keep in mind is that we don't have to find THE 20 people who are best for this group, we simply need to find A set of 20 people who fit the criteria and who are willing to plow through a whole bunch of these requests. So we are definitely not saying that these 20 people are the most Mozillian of all Mozillians, but that they are qualified to handle this task. They should be distributed between regions and teams as much as possible to make sure the trust spreads as evenly as possible through Mozilla and doesn't bias for eg North American developers.
I also want to suggest maybe there needs to be a time period before a person can vouch for new members? I think this is also normal in this type of trust system and it also minimizes the damage to the trust structure if someone makes it through by mistake. Maybe Gerv could start an etherpad to track the proposal and proposals for the proposal? ;) Or looping back we seem to be throwing out some of the work mrz and Reps have done, should we ask those people who already did this work to alter their proposal to reflect what's been discussed here? On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Gervase Markham <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
