On 25 May 2015 at 11:18, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Mike Connor <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On criteria, let's not get too far into the weeds here. Hard cases >> generally make bad law. >> > > But we already know that there are hard cases that we need to deal with. > Indeed one such case is the origin of this thread. >
The origin of this thread was from a legacy entry that mis-identified Kosovo as a part of Albania. I don't think that passes any reasonable sniff test. > I'll take good judgement (and reasonable discussion over disagreements) >> over trying to introduce a finely-detailed rule set. >> >> So, as a way to move forward, I'd propose that we do the following: >> >> 1) Use the Mozillians API in all cases to apply a uniform standard across >> all Mozilla sites. >> >> 2) Standardize on "Country or Region" or "Location" or similar for fields >> to avoid sovereignty implications >> >> 3) Use ISO-3166 as a base, and put the Mozillians owner (or their >> delegate) in charge of deciding on any variations (Taiwan, Kosovo, etc) >> from the base spec. >> > > I don't agree with this for the reasons Adam Roach so eloquently observed. > Adam's argument seems generally rooted in a desire to avoid making decisions. I do not believe blame avoidance should be a primary goal here. As Tim and others have pointed out, the list is flawed because of UN politics, so all we really get is someone to blame. My goal here is to maximize inclusiveness, and to let human judgement give us the flexibility to decide what's right for Mozillians. > 4) Identify .governance as the point of escalation if someone wants to >> have a wider discussion on an owner decision to include/exclude a proposed >> entry. >> > > A big public discussion about whether X is a valid region. What could > possibly go wrong? > We'll have it no matter what we choose as a policy. > This feels like the least bad option, and provides an escalation path >> towards a wider discussion on the merits of an individual situation, rather >> than strawman arguments about where a theoretical line should go. >> >> Thoughts? >> > > I think this is a bad idea. Much better would be to just use 3166 as the > entire prepopulated list and let people write in whatever they want, but > not add it to a list we ratify. > And that's not going to work for technical and abuse reasons. And leaves the original, clearly wrong example on the table, except we'd get to point the finger elsewhere. Do we care more about inclusiveness or blame avoidance? That's where the argument seems to hinge at this point. -- Mike _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
