> We should definitely > avoid any approach that has that weird, unhelpful "YOU may ALREADY BE a > $GROUPMEMBER" cult-mailout vibe, but we should also be able to identify > people who are share our values and are advancing the cause in some way > that isn't on anyone's roadmap, and invite them to the party.
Yes. Broadening who we think of as a Mozillian is about giving us the ability to support people as they are starting to do things to advance our mission and to help them identify with the community. We're trying to lower barriers to entry so that people like Austin can identify as a Mozillian before they've done all of the heavy lifting on their own to get into the core of the project. We're not trying to give a label out to people who may or may not want it and we're not trying to game things by switching around definitions. There are very practical things that follow from this that are in service to the good ideas people mention in this thread. I completely agree with Benjamin that everyone who works on Mozilla projects should be included in mozillians.org -- some of those people are the active and core contributors who have historically been considered to be Mozillians and some of those are people who haven't historically been considered to be Mozillians. Making that happen requires that we have an understanding of who to invite. The Summit gave us the criteria to know who we're talking about and by using those criteria we can identify and welcome all of the people who are in the community. And I completely agree with Clint that we should help teams learn how to design for participation and connect with volunteers. We are doing that right now and the workshops we've created emphasize the importance of knowing who potential contributors are and welcoming them (something else we'll need the criteria in order to do). Thanks, David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
