On 5/30/18 11:27 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
1) Positive participation in an area of the project is generally a
prerequisite for authority over that area of the project. We expect
module owners to have contributed to the area they are module owners
of prior to becoming module owners. (This has the downside that
authority needs the kind of time commitment that may be hard to
sustain unless paid to commit the time, which introduces bias in terms
of people who are able to commit a lot of time to the project despite
not being paid to do so. Still, the next item wouldn't really work
without some relation to demonstrated positive participation. It
doesn't mean that people who haven't committed the time to have formal
authority shouldn't be heard.)
2) Authority in the Open Source project shouldn't be tied to being
paid by a particular entity. (Firefox development is now much more
concentrated to being paid by Mozilla than it was e.g. in 2004, but
co-development is a generally healthy thing in Open Source. Therefore,
I think we should keep our governance structure open to more
co-development again in the future and be careful not to close off
governance participation to current co-developers.)
3) Authority in an area of the project should involve continued
participation in that area of the project. (We now have the module
owner emeritus status, which acknowledges past participation while
withdrawing current authority.)
I think these are all very good points. Do you propose that we
formalise them, or generally make them more explicit, in the governance
statement? (i.e. would you modify the proposal?)
Patrick
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
