I too think we should run another pass over this and make it seem much less legally.
Right now it makes me feel a special kind of uncomfortable. I do think that something like this could have a lot of value however. Just needs to be framed properly, and not be full of legalise. Additionally it might be worth trying to integrate a bunch of this w/ the pre-existing community guidelines and resurfacing that. Just my £0.02 // FuzzyFox www.webmaker.org William Duyck Webmaker Mentor Mozilla Foundation Email: [email protected] Twitter: @FuzzyFox0 On 30 May 2014, at 18:49, Alina Mierlus <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi David, > > I subscribe what David Ascher says. If I put myself in the shoes of a new > potential contributor, my reaction would be: ok, I don't need it, thanks! > I must say that I'm a bit concerned about some tactics Mozilla has been > adopting in terms of community building activities. > > I too, believe that the project needs to attract more people in order to > have greater impact in various regions of the globe. Mozilla builds > technology that is booth "free as in free speech" and deploy(able). There > are many opportunities around distributed services or FirefoxOS > applications ecosystem. If you received new contributors with such > agreements ("our project", "you don't have the right to", "you cannot do > this!"), I wonder that there would be an atmosphere of collaboration, > consensus and trust. > > Let's try to imagine Mozilla more as an umbrella for various people / orgs. > with shared understanding, collaborating and building consensus - not > dividing it into the "we" and "them". It'd probably be harder to do it > (much harder than "recruiting and making them obey rules"), but probably > worth it for the long run. > > This doesn't mean that there shouldn't be guidelines, workshops on how > people should treat each other when participating in Mozilla Project. I > welcome documents such as the community participation guideline for example. > > -Alina > > > On 30 May 2014 19:23, 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 >> > > > > -- > Alina Mierlus > @alina_mierlus > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
