On 13/04/15 10:39, Benjamin Kerensa 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 think that this happened in the past, but is no longer the case.
However, I would like to request you to share more info on this, and if
you feel that someone inside the org is acting that way, feel free to
comment/complain.
I'm not probably the best person to receive this feedback, but I think
two names at the participation team (Brian, William Q), that could help
you on that.
Every single new hire has to go through a webpage, where you find clear
information about how Mozilla operates, what the communities are, etc.
So I think that the new employees are completely aware that we work in
the open. Also the HR team is working hard to solve that gap constantly.
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.
I was checking some of the "discussions" bugs, and there is no comment
actually. I'm pretty sure that they don't use those bugs, however, it
was implemented to have a track of the decision process. If you want, we
can talk with Sandra, Jason and Dan to see if they want to share a doc
with the criteria to select which events will support, etc.
We can populate this doc through the DAM portal for example.
Cheers,
Franc.-
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
--
Francisco Picolini
Community Events Coordinator
@mozilla
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
