On 04/11/13 22:29, 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.
If a contributor feels that keeping things confidential to Mozilla would be difficult for them, it's probably best if they don't join the group - or, if they do, don't join the forums that group access enables. A lot of what it's for will involve this. > 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. Indeed, although we have that problem already in lots of closed communications channels. The fix for this is a social norm which says it's OK to say "hey, shouldn't this be somewhere more public?" When we had internal forums (now superceded by Yammer) I suggested hacking the "new thread" form to have a field "This discussion can't be public because...", just so people would _think_ about it before posting there. > 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. I'd like to stay away from that if at all possible, for a number of reasons: * It would mean formal agreements with a large chunk of the community, which is fairly unprecedented in open source circles IINM * It would be an admin hassle * It's unlikely Mozilla would take someone to court for breach of agreement anyway. Gerv _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
