+1 to working on the language. It has a lot of "immediate notice, rules, not, should not, cannot, may not, violate".
Stormy On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:23 AM, David Ascher <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi David — I’m quite supportive of the general goal of clarifying the > social contract that we have with each other (assuming a bit that that’s > part of the motivation here). > > This document reads like a legal document, not a social contract. Let’s > find a way to tweak the language, the framing, etc. so that it’s not as > corporate sounding. When reading it I feel like i’m working through a > terms of use document, not being welcomed and understanding how I’ll work > with this new and inspiring community. > > For example, it feels very weird to have a non-signed agreement, and to > put the onus on the volunteer to let us know that they want to end the > agreement. In reality volunteers just stop showing up. > > I would also suggest that an important part of the social contract between > Mozilla and volunteers is to be explicit about how the organization will > treat volunteers, how staff will treat volunteers, and how existing > volunteers will treat new volunteers. That to me feels like at least as > important as telling people that they can’t misrepresent themselves. > > I’d also like to suggest that we have a more explicit set of goals for > this document — what need is it responding to, how do we know it’s “doing > its job”, etc. > > —david > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
