On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Mike Hoye <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, everyone - > > As part of a Planet refresh [1] planned for the new year and aiming for > end-Q2, the Planet peers are going to be revising the somewhat-sparse > Planet documentation and policies [2]. Existing policies haven't reflected > reality in some time and, like virtually everything about Planet, need a > fair bit of love. > > While part of the refresh will be technical - clearing out dead feeds, > making search work right, a mobile theme, etc - we'll also be proposing > some changes to how feeds are included on Planet. Our aim is to advance the > core Mozilla mission and foster an inclusive, diverse community around that > mission without denying anyone the freedom to seek out like-minded > Mozillians and speak to things they care deeply about. > > How will you decide which feeds are dead? Are we talking dead as in the RSS feed errors or dead as in no recent content (inactive blog?) > > In short: lots of Mozillians care passionately about non-Mozilla stuff; > sometimes that's crafting and music and sometimes it's activism, politics > and religion. > > While we don't want to see Planet become a place where people aren't free > to express themselves, we also don't want Planet to become a platform that > alienates Mozillians who feel differently, if just as strongly, on those > same issues.The Mozilla participation guidelines [3] are an important > baseline, but we believe that by taking an active role in this we can do > better. > > To that end, we are going to propose that Planet have a participation > policy including words to the effect that "in discussing contentious or > personal topics outside of Mozilla's mission, please consider invitations > to conversation welcome, position statements not, and exercise your > judgement with the growth of a kind and inclusive community in mind." > > Further, that we ask Planet's participating authors to: > > - add a "mozilla" tag to posts that are relevant to Mozilla, so that it's > explicit that their inclusion in Planet is deliberate, and > - when addressing the community on a topic others may find challenging, > that there be a brief disclaimer at the top of those posts outlining the > contents. We intend to provide boilerplate text and HTML snippets people > can paste into posts to make that as painless as possible, though people > can always roll their own. > > > Our hope is that this small up-front investment will lead to Planet's > content being generally more focused without costing anyone the opportunity > to learn about, learn from and grow with other Mozillians who share their > values or beliefs. > > Focused on what? Planet's were not created with the idea of being focused on any specific content or topic but instead were created to give a glimpse into the lives of people who work on a Open Source project. I would really encourage you to check out other Planet's there is a comprehensive list here: http://www.planetplanet.org/ If you look at the wiki pages for other projects Planet's you will notice the reoccurring theme is that Planet's do not exist for a focus on the project and do not restrict or ask authors to focus their blog posts. Also this would be the first time I have heard of a Planet asking for tags to be used to declare intent or disclaimers to be added. In any case what is the motivation behind changing the Planet after a decade and better yet changing it in a way that is inconsistent with why Planet's exist and why Planet Mozilla has existed? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
