I suppose this proposal is no go too? I think the issue is despite how much support there is to move this forward by staff we need someone higher level to support the proposal.
On Dec 17, 2014 5:12 AM, "Larissa Shapiro" <[email protected]> wrote: > > My tl;dr comment is that if this is clearly marketed as a "pilot" then I fully, 100% support it, though I will echo the concern that this overloads the Reps Council - in the long run it might make sense for another group of people to be delegated this authority. > > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Benjamin Kerensa <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Majken Connor <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > 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. >> > >> >> So I think the second issue could be something that could be decided later >> and brought back to MozGov or even defined through normal ReMo Governance >> later. I think getting to the point that Reps can get an address through a >> process alone is a great step forward. >> >> The first issue is simple because once we have consensus that were going to >> move forward with this the request is really as simple as ReMo Governance >> having a process and then once someone is approved a bug can be filed with >> the appropriate component and IT can create an aliases. >> >> I think looking back at the discussions there was overwhelmingly more >> support for then against but the issue seems to be that because this is not >> an asset controlled by ReMo that a decision maker like Mitchell or someone >> further up the Mozilla ecosystem needs to sign off on this "Hey look we >> have a consensus and so yes were going to do this" and give a blessing >> officially here in the discussion. >> >> >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > >> +1 >> >> >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
