We want more people to understand the Mozilla mission, identify with it
and take action to move the mission forward. That pushes us to be
inclusive, and provide a welcome, encouragement and legitimacy to
people across a range of different levels of engagement. At the same
time, we want a way to identify the set of people who are actively
committed and engaged in a community of shared effort. A single
"yes/no" decision -- yes, you're a mozillian, or "no, you're not" can't
capture all of this well.
To resolve this, I suggest we identify a range of ways to engage, with
names, so that "mozillian" is part of a continuum or possibilities. I
have a draft proposal. It's related to Gerv's comments, but broader
scope.
I'm utterly on board with bsmedberg and clint's comments re engagement
pathways, this is key. So finding a way to identify people's form of
engagement is also important. To take Benjamin's point re having
contributors from other companies in a phonebook -- I think my proposal
identifies this group in a way that would allow inclusion in contact
lists, without equating them with people who are here because of the
mission.
I'm not so sure each and every category or word is correct, but I'm
pretty convinced that something like this would help us.
The proposal is in the form an image, you can find it here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59716899@N02/11199165833/
Mitchell
On 12/3/13 10:33 AM, [email protected] wrote:
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
