On 20/10/15 19:02, Jet Villegas wrote: > When a Module Owner is also a Mozilla employee who then leaves Mozilla, it > seems prudent that their Module Ownership is relinquished.
I would be very uneasy with this being the default. Module Ownership is a Mozilla project position, and does not come with or go with employment by any particular entity, MoCo/MoFo included. This is one of the key distinctions which makes the Module Ownership system different from the MoCo org chart. > There are some > Modules for which Ownership has to be a full Time job. That may be so, and it would be prudent to recognise which those are, but Mozilla Corporation is not the only organization in the world which might employ Mozilla developers, and if someone is unemployed, they also have a reasonable amount of time to spare. This needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. > There have been instances where a Module Owner is asked to relinquish > Module Ownership for other reasons. In those cases, I think Emeritus status > and continued Module involvement should be subject to review and approval. As Mitchell's original post outlined, Emeritus status is a factual designation, not a subjective anointing. To do the latter would, as she said, be a recipe for "trouble and then paralysis". As for "current module involvement", that's not a formal status. If someone has left under a cloud, it would be within the module owner's capabilities to simply refuse their patches if they wished. Gerv _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
