Hi Benjamin, Could I also ask if this wiki page is also out outdated: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/
"Mozilla is an open source project governed as a meritocracy. Our community is structured as a virtual organization where authority is distributed to both volunteer and employed community members as they show their abilities through contributions to the project." If this is still the principle then it should be possible for members of the community to challenge Mozilla Corp on the basis of 'meritocracy', and I believe I can demonstrate better performance than Mozilla Corp on a component directed at performance and have been able to do so for two years. If this is still the principle then perhaps Mozilla Corp should not have been shutting out members of the community and working with the assumption that only they represent Firefox in standards development? What happens when Mozilla Corp can not claim module ownership and peer status under the principle of meritocracy? Are these the principles of Mozilla or Mozilla Corp? Perhaps the wiki is outdated and if so then can it be updated so that the community knows where it stands. Regards Douglas Crosher On 02/24/2017 10:20 AM, Douglas Crosher via governance wrote: > Hi Benjamin, > > Thank you for the clarification, perhaps I was mislead by the 'outdated' > wiki, and on how this 'community' works or doesn't. If I have done all I > can here then so be it. > > Regards > Douglas Crosher > > On 02/24/2017 09:49 AM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote: >> That module wiki is outdated Brendan is not involved in the project. I'm >> not shutting down this discussion I'm just letting you know you have >> exhausted your options. >> >> I've been around long enough to see many emails like yours and see them >> go nowhere. >> >> If you haven't got a positive response from the module owner or Chris I >> don't think anyone is going to intervene on your behalf. >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 23, 2017 2:42 PM, "Douglas Crosher" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Benjamin, >> >> With all due respect I believe Brendan was still listed as having the >> final say on technical disputes, and there are likely other paths too. I >> see nothing to indicate that you have the authority to close down this >> discussion. If no one in Mozilla wishes to engage then that is their >> choice, I just won't bother here any more. >> >> Regards >> Douglas Crosher >> >> On 02/24/2017 09:33 AM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote: >> > That's not how things work and no Brendan hasnt been involved in the >> > project for years. >> > >> > Mozilla's Board of Directors don't get involved in bugs and I can tell >> > you that your not going to get any escalation by emailing here. >> > >> > Module owner has the final say and you've indicated you already went >> > that route so you exhausted all your options. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Feb 23, 2017 2:30 PM, "Douglas Crosher" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Benjamin, >> > >> > Last time I looked I believe Brendan still had the final say, >> so I find >> > that hard to believe. I would like to hear that from the Mozilla >> > Directors? >> > >> > I would like to see some accommodation for the performance use >> cases, >> > and it does not seem a big thing to ask and something that >> would benefit >> > the web. This might require some new split in responsibilities >> so that >> > everyone can get along, and some more objective agreed metrics for >> > 'merit'. >> > >> > Regards >> > Douglas Crosher >> > >> > On 02/24/2017 08:41 AM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote: >> > > There is no escalation if the module owner and decision >> makers in the >> > > bug have made a decision. >> > > >> > > It appears you've exhausted your options. >> > > >> > > On Feb 23, 2017 1:23 PM, "Douglas Crosher via governance" >> > > <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> > <mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> > <mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> > <mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>>> wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > I would like to bring the following review decision to the >> > attention of >> > > the community and to ask how such matters can be escalated: >> > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1342060 >> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1342060> >> > <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1342060 >> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1342060>> >> > > <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1342060 >> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1342060> >> > <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1342060 >> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1342060>>> >> > > >> > > It is not just the decision that I dispute, I am not happy >> > with the >> > > process leading to this decision, and development has been >> > ongoing for >> > > around two years now and I first started contributing to the >> > general >> > > area of the work (asm.js at that time year before that). >> > > >> > > I dispute that Mozilla Corp can demonstrate the merit of the >> > decision. I >> > > have raised the problems with the CEO Chris on two >> occasions, and >> > > recently with the module owner without response. I believe >> > there is >> > > merit in the objections, and that I can demonstrate better >> > performance >> > > and a better plan. Where does that leave the Mozilla >> community and >> > > governance based on merit? Do I just give up and not bother? >> > > >> > > My impression of working on this project is that Mozilla >> Corp >> > dictated >> > > the decisions, and one reason given was that the critical >> > issue was >> > > getting agreement between the web browsers but this >> would seem >> > to assume >> > > that the Firefox community has no representation for the >> product. >> > > >> > > I was not consulted before the creation of the >> WebAssembly CG, >> > the group >> > > many never have been given a choice on how the Chairs were >> > appointed, >> > > and in the end I am just ignored. >> > > >> > > I could demonstrate better performance at the start of the >> > process and >> > > better performance now, and can articulate a development >> plan. >> > > >> > > Regards >> > > Douglas Crosher >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > governance mailing list >> > > [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> > <mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> > <mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> > <mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>> >> > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance >> <https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance> >> > <https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance >> <https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>> >> > > <https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance >> <https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance> >> > <https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance >> <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
