Yes, it has snowballed, I think most people are happy with the mafia style proposal for giving out the emails. We could move forward with this, and then decide if we will use this group to help seed the groups that get the other privileges.
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:32 PM, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
