On 2013-11-04 5:29 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
In the Thunderbird case, I know other long-time Mozillians who agreed with the leaker. Given our values we will always run a high risk that a core contributor will think something should be public. The solution to this sort of thing is to better communicate what is private and why it is private and when it will be public and have a functional process for objecting when something is raised privately.
I'm not sure anyone knows what the motivations were for the leaker. It was going to be public in 72 hours, so it's not like there was much of a moral argument against secrecy. If the argument is that we shouldn't share with community ahead of public, I guess I can't really agree with that.
While we're talking about one kind of abuse - betraying the trust - we should also talk about the opposite type of abuse - misusing the trust. When something is shared only with this group it should be carefully justified each time.
I suspect that the more we have to do to justify sharing information with Mozillians the less likely it will be that people will share outside of employees. The goal of having a trusted group is to make it easier to include larger groups in information sharing. It would be a high-quality problem for us to give advance notice of too many things to our trusted community members.
Reps sign NDAs, maybe we can have some sort of formal agreement in this case as well that touches on the appropriate use of this trusted communication group.
Legal overhead is a pain for commit access, I'd like to avoid that unless we intend to share broadly without subsequent public disclosure. Given that NDAs are typically constrained to employees only (and changing that would be extremely hard with most partners), I can't see that being common enough to do any of this.
-- Mike _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
