> Is it perhaps because the information were now trying to be explicit > about lacked peer review and consensus? Who approved any of these > expectations? Where was that discussion held?
We need to be explicit because the information we want new contributors to know about (this goes for both paid staff and volunteers) is hard to find. How would anyone know that we have participation guidelines, for instance? If you wanted to discover where that page is on www.mozilla.org it is hard to find. You have to navigate through the following set of pages to get to it: Home page > Mission page > Governance page > Policies page > Participation Guidelines. The Participation Guidelines were certainly created through an open process where many people had input and the discussion was held in a variety of community channels. > Is it part of their job though? Yes. Our rhetoric is that all staff are scaffolding for a broad-based community effort. Some staff, such as a dedicated community manager, have more responsibilities than others, but everyone has a role to play in keeping the community healthy. > Do recruiters emphasize that if hired > candidates are expected to engage with contributors as peers and > support the wider community? My understanding talking to several > people while this may be an expectation that it is not actually > emphasized during hiring or by managers outside of the teams that have > a strict goal of interacting with community as their daily job. So my recommendation to address fantasai's point is to make this information more explicit in job descriptions so that these topics will be discussed more consistently in the interview process. Thanks, David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
