Le 06/11/2013 17:31, Gervase Markham a écrit :
On 04/11/13 21:26, David Bruant wrote:
This proposal doesn't explain the problem it tries to solve (and I'm
pointing that because it's not really clear to me what problem that is).
The three bullets at the top are three example problems that this
network could be used to solve.
No, they're not. As described, they're "privileges". They're
consequences of the solution being chosen, but the problem isn't
anywhere described.
Why do we need to build a trusted subgroup of Mozillians to gain access
and discuss sensitive non-public Mozilla information?
Why do we need to build a trusted subgroup of Mozillians as an easy
alternative to MoCo employees that people can go to with non-public stuffs?
Why do we need this new subgroup to get an @mozilla.org address?
What does the creation of this group create that wasn't possible before?
What is the problem we want to solve? Why is this new subgroup a
solution? What are the other possible solutions?
I feel like a solution is being rushed and implementation details are
being discussed almost up to bikeshed while the problem hasn't been
clearly stated.
I'll relate with my experience. Not pretending to make a generality out
of my case, but I feel it can be informative.
I'm not an employee, but I've been trusted enough to represent Mozilla
in a non-public circumstance for instance.
I don't have an @mozilla.org address, but it's quite clear to lots of
people in my local area and on Twitter that I sort of de facto represent
Mozilla (but I'm not a Reps). People come to me to talk about FirefoxOS,
people tweet at me directly to report issues with Firefox or MDN. I
don't think an @mozilla.org address would give me more credibility.
I haven't had an experience with people contacting me for
Mozilla-related non-public stuffs (most certainly because most of what's
happening at Mozilla is open), but I'm certain some people wouldn't
hesitate to contact me.
In my experience, such a group and the related privileges haven't been
needed. Maybe it's just me.
I also wonder if creating one subgroup is appropriate. I imagine
non-public discussion topics can range from EME to business
model/finance to R&D strategy to marketing strategy, etc.
It sounds unrealistic to believe there is one set of people that is both
interested in all of these and relevant in all of these discussions.
It might be more appropriate to create "focus groups" in a case-by-case
basis.
For instance, create an EME focus group with the relevant employees and
community members. And it'll be different than the business model focus
group, etc.
This might reflect better what's already happening de facto.
David
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
