The vast majority of the work is evaluation of legal compliance (i.e. financial, people, contractual, etc) to identify how restrictive we _must_ be in order to be compliant with our legal obligations. That part is not going to be open, as many of the details can't or shouldn't be shared. Once we've established what we _must_ do, it's easier to have a conversation about what we _should_ do within that framework.
On 15 April 2015 at 05:37, Benjamin Kerensa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I strongly agree with the sentiment that we should strive to be more open >> > where possible and where openness will help us collectively act in the >> > interests of the mission. My belief is that's going to be a much easier >> > conversation to have once we have a workable taxonomy we can look at and >> > discuss. Given that, I'd like to propose that we table this >> conversation >> > until that taxonomy is ready for discussion. >> >> Is there an identified group working on this taxonomy? Is it part of >> their quarterly goals? Are there ways to track their progress, and >> provide input into their workings? >> >> (Without those things, all the above runs the risk of sounding like >> "We're going to apply stop energy to this improvement because we are >> doing a bigger change which may actually never happen.") >> > > I would add are these taxonomy discussions open to Mozillians under NDA? > Can other staff who > might be interested participate? > > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
