Yes, it would be time-consuming, but if it's not done then: a) leadership can't know how big of a problem Mozilla has with transparency, and how consistently or inconsistently different teams are applying guidelines as to what is private or isn't
b) you're basically just suggesting we solve the problem as it affects you, rather than addressing it as a whole. Perhaps the word audit is conjuring up images that I don't mean to. I don't mean that a team should go through every single bug that is marked confidential. On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Benjamin Kerensa <[email protected]> wrote: > That would be pretty time consuming to do an across the board audit. I > think the thing is Mozilla is a corporation at the end of the day and not > everyone it hires cares about the manifesto or open source and so working > in the open is not a priority and defaulting to corporate norms is > something that just happens. > > I've seen this happen where a employee who just started working in the > open leaves and is replaced by a new hire with a corporate background who > defaults the work that was already being done in the open back to closed. > > Anyways to the point of bugs I think their needs to be some criteria for > what should and should not be company-confidential. I think we need a new - > confidential group added as a less restrictive level and with criteria and > go from there. > > On Apr 13, 2015 10:17 AM, "Majken Connor" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'd love to see a formal audit. Like, have some team go through and > figure > > out where are all these policies, who does what in private and why do > they > > do it in private? I wonder if anyone in the organization has a complete > > view like this? > > > > I'm not opposed to things needing to be private, but it should be > > consistent, and it should be explained why it can't be. > > > > I think also if there were a group starting off with an audit, then that > > could also be the start of a group that helps try to "solve" for some > > things that we wish are public, but don't have a good plan around how to > do > > that well. > > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > On 13/04/2015 05:46, Benjamin Kerensa wrote: > > > > > >> In the cases of things that truly need to be company-confidential then > > >> those could still be marked but unless a strong justification could be > > >> given for flagging company-confidential then > > >> > > >> bugs that would ordinarily be made company-confidential would be > > >> mozillian-confidential. > > >> > > >> Thoughts? > > >> > > > > > > Overall, I think we overuse company-confidential and I would prefer > that > > > more bugs became public. > > > > > > Can you give a few examples of the types of bugs where you believe > > > company-confidential is wrong and yet they can't be public? > > > > > > ~ Gijs > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > governance mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
