I think we were in agreement on Reps getting email addresses. Two parts stalled:
1. How to actually give out the mailboxes 2. When we expand to allow non-Reps contributors to have the addresses (as we agreed that contributors besides Reps have earned them) how do we have a clear definition for non-Reps contributors that being a member of the Reps program automatically provides Reps. I don't remember which parts we agreed on, but there were some discussions about whether or not the email address be revoked. I *believe* we agreed that the address only be revoked in the case of abuse, ie, if you earned it, even if you stopped being a contributor, you could keep it. The beauty of starting out with granting email addresses to Reps, is that we could work out the policy on abuse and if you get to keep the address before expanding. Reps would be the pilot. Council and module peers will not be able to police use of email addresses in the sense of doing any sort of monitoring to watch for abuses. They would be able though to respond to complaints. I don't believe Council should be solely responsible for setting policy around this either. I assume there are usage guidelines for employees? Perhaps Council could be consulted to see if any changes in that policy would be needed to make the email use suitable for volunteers. Remember that council is only 9 people, 7 of whom are volunteers and all are already doing plenty to manage the Reps program. On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Mike Hoye <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2014-12-15 9:01 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > >> On 10/12/14 22:19, Benjamin Kerensa wrote: >> >>> It is a shame there is not despite how much support for such was shown in >>> the last round of discussions. It seems like we just got into >>> bikeshedding >>> over the topic. >>> >> I really don't think that issues about who should get one, what the >> criteria should be, whether it's for life or not, and how we make sure >> we don't exclude parts of the community count as "bikeshedding"... they >> seem pretty fundamental. >> > > It's been a while, but let's see if we can settle this. [1] > > I think that the case the Reps make - broadly speaking that enabling > community leadership is a thing we want and that a mozilla.org email > address can lend weight and legitimacy to those efforts - is compelling. I > think a better question than "should the Reps have m.o addresses" is "do > the Reps have an effective governance model". > > As I understand it: > > - We have a Reps Council, whose members are nominated & elected annually. > - There is a Reps module, owned by Pierros and peered by several others. > > My understanding is that the reps council members are elected annually, > and the generally-acquiescent module peers are in the benevolent-dictator > seats with the module owner - Pierros - being the place the buck stops. If > we believe that this is an effective governance model that results in > responsible people advancing Mozilla's goals responsibly - and I think it > is and does, respectively - I propose that: > > - Reps Council be empowered to nominate people to have an appropriate > Mozilla.org email addresses. > - With the module peers' assent those addresses be granted for the > duration of that person's active participation in the Reps, and that > - Council and module peers be responsible for usage guidelines, policing, > etc, with final approval resting with the module owner. > > And we proceed with confident they'll do right by Mozilla with their > newfound superpowers. > > > - mhoye > > > > > [1] - The town square is suddenly empty. The noonday sun beats down as the > townsfolk shutter their windows. A tumbleweed rolls by. In the distance, a > train whistle. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
