I like this a lot, but I'd also suggest that we expand this idea beyond
merely just leaving employment to also encompass other changes in
employment, such as managerial promotions.
If one's employment status changes such that that person is no longer
able to effectively serve as an owner/peer due to other
responsibilities, this review process could also be valuable.
On 10/20/2015 12:54 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
One other process I'm thinking we should implement is a discussion
when a Module Owner leaves employment, esp leaving employment at
Mozilla. At this discussion we would discuss things like:
-- how they came to be module owner (were they involved as a
volunteer? is their involvement all stemming from employment status?)
-- their new role -- how much time will they have? can they dedicate
enough attention to be the owner?
-- perhaps set a period of time after the end of employment to review
this.
-- add the mechanism Mike mentioned -- where people can indicate if
they are active or inactive Emeritus Owners. That way one could step
down as Owner and still indicate one is active in the module.
then we could think about extending this to peers as well.
What do you think?
ml
On 10/20/15 9:30 AM, Mike Hoye wrote:
On 2015-10-20 12:04 PM, Myk Melez wrote:
I would have expected the status to be an attribute on each module,
much as some current owners/peers are marked "inactive" today.
This touches on the only suggestion I had, that former owners and peers
be able to mark themselves "active" or "inactive", to telegraph their
interest in continued participation.
- mhoye
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
