@mozilla.org email addresses for Mozilla Reps

Hello Governance,

I'm writing today to put forward the following proposal for @mozilla.org 
email addresses for Mozilla Reps as outlined here: 
https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Mrz/mozilla-org

Additionally, I would like to highlight the following policy that the 
ReMo Council has put together in regards to email addresses for ReMo: 
https://remo.etherpad.mozilla.org/email-policy

These proposals and proposed policies have been the work of both 
community contributors and staff and I think adding email addresses as a 
tool for contributors would be beneficial and add authenticity to 
discussions community contributors often have with third parties 
including universities, media and developers they engage with in order 
to further the goals of Mozilla.

Many other open source projects already have practices of doing this 
(Ubuntu: @ubuntu.com, Debian: @debian.org, GNOME: @gnome.org and so on).

Let's start a discussion on this and see where it goes!

-- 
Sincerly,

Benjamin Kerensa
http://benjaminkerensa.com

0
Benjamin
10/25/2013 4:31:44 AM
mozilla.governance 764 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

91 Replies
980 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 51

I like the idea of revisiting what a @mozilla.org email address means 
today, and I think that outstanding longtime leadership is probably best 
matching what it is today, and what it could mean if we handed out new ones.

I'd not waive that requirements for paid contributors, though. I'd also 
wouldn't restrict it to reps for non-paid contributors.

Technically, I'd ask for a revocation policy to be included. And we'd 
probably need at least best-practices on what usernames to use. The 
current list is very much nick-names, is that good? Do we need to care?

Axel

On 10/25/13 6:31 AM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> Hello Governance,
>
> I'm writing today to put forward the following proposal for @mozilla.org
> email addresses for Mozilla Reps as outlined here:
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Mrz/mozilla-org
>
> Additionally, I would like to highlight the following policy that the
> ReMo Council has put together in regards to email addresses for ReMo:
> https://remo.etherpad.mozilla.org/email-policy
>
> These proposals and proposed policies have been the work of both
> community contributors and staff and I think adding email addresses as a
> tool for contributors would be beneficial and add authenticity to
> discussions community contributors often have with third parties
> including universities, media and developers they engage with in order
> to further the goals of Mozilla.
>
> Many other open source projects already have practices of doing this
> (Ubuntu: @ubuntu.com, Debian: @debian.org, GNOME: @gnome.org and so on).
>
> Let's start a discussion on this and see where it goes!
>

0
Axel
10/25/2013 8:33:30 AM
Hi Ben,
On 25/10/13 05:31, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> I'm writing today to put forward the following proposal for @mozilla.org
> email addresses for Mozilla Reps as outlined here:
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Mrz/mozilla-org

You specifically mention Mozilla Reps, but that document says:

"To best reflect Mozilla's purpose as a non-profit mission first,
paid-staff will also have @mozilla.org email addresses."

Is that still part of the plan?

I agree with Majken that if we are making people Reps who aren't capable
of representing Mozilla, at least at the level of having an email
address, then something has gone wrong. Can you explain more why you
feel that an additional vetting step is needed?

Also, not everyone can or wants to become a rep. Can you expand on why
you feel we should tie this to the Reps program particularly?

At the moment, a discussion is going on about how we can create a set of
trusted people who can take part in Mozilla-internal discussions on
topics that we don't yet want shared with the press. It seems like the
problem of who gets @mozilla.org email addresses is a similar problem.
Perhaps the two could be combined? We need to have a big effort to
figure out how to define this group, and then give them both the email
addresses and the internal forum access.

Gerv
0
Gervase
10/25/2013 12:16:24 PM
On 2013-10-25 1:16 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> You specifically mention Mozilla Reps, but that document says: "To 
> best reflect Mozilla's purpose as a non-profit mission first, 
> paid-staff will also have @mozilla.org email addresses." Is that still 
> part of the plan?
A casual survey of the last two hundred hires or so should answer that 
for sure, but for what it's worth I - hired at the beginning of this 
year - don't have a .org address.

- mhoye
0
Mike
10/25/2013 2:16:41 PM
On Friday, October 25, 2013 7:16:41 AM UTC-7, Mike Hoye wrote:
> A casual survey of the last two hundred hires or so should answer that 
> for sure, but for what it's worth I - hired at the beginning of this 
> year - don't have a .org address.

To be expected - this proposed policy isn't in effect. The goal is to discuss and approve and then backfill addresses (or something - I specifically avoided implementation details).
0
mrz
10/25/2013 3:29:34 PM
> I agree with Majken that if we are making people Reps who aren't capable
> of representing Mozilla, at least at the level of having an email
> address, then something has gone wrong. Can you explain more why you
> feel that an additional vetting step is needed?

You know, it was discussed but I really can't recall the rationale anymore.

I think, however, the line comes more closely to whether or not an individual is an active contributor or not. I believe Reps - by definition of the program - are active contributors. Paid-staff too.

If I try to recall my own thinking from way back when, I think that's why I included Reps + paid-staff by default.

I also agree there's a revocation process but I'm less clear on how you determine someone's no longer active.
0
mrz
10/25/2013 3:40:10 PM
Email addresses that die are a lot less useful than email addresses that =
never die. I understand the desire to not have people misrepresent their =
level of affiliation with Mozilla, but I don=92t believe technology or =
policy can solve that problem.  Tying an address to =93currently active=94=
 also means lots of headaches when dealing with contributors whose =
involvement is periodic, seasonal, or whatnot.

Was there consideration of a possible =93once a mozillian, always a =
mozillian=94 attitude with respect to email addresses, modulo exceptions =
for egregious improper use?  I for one would not begrudge =
previously-active mozillians who might still want to use their =
mozilla.org address if they=92re proud that they earned one once upon a =
time.

=97david

0
David
10/25/2013 3:51:16 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Ascher" <da@mozilla.com>
Subject: Re: @mozilla.org email addresses for Mozilla Reps

Was there consideration of a possible =E2=80=9Conce a mozillian, always a m=
ozillian=E2=80=9D attitude with respect to email addresses, modulo exceptio=
ns for egregious improper use?  I for one would not begrudge previously-act=
ive mozillians who might still want to use their mozilla.org address if the=
y=E2=80=99re proud that they earned one once upon a time.

=E2=80=94david


I'm all for this, too, if there's a clear directive and support for this in=
frastructure. Giving out an e-mail address is a great badge of honor, but e=
ven uses that are "routine" like sending out a large attachment to many peo=
ple, can end up affecting all Mozilla e-mail. Are we backing up community m=
embers' emails too? If so, that's more resources and time spent by IT; if n=
ot, and there's a problem, we end up with a lot of unhappy Mozillians.=20

The summit was 1/3 employees, 2/3 community members. If we give emails to e=
veryone who made the cut for the summit, that would triple our current emai=
l infrastructure. Are we prepared to spend more time on the e-mail infrastr=
ucture to wrangle this influx?

-Sheeri Cabral
Manager, Systems DB Team
Senior DB Admin/Architect
Mozilla
0
Sheeri
10/25/2013 3:58:41 PM
On Oct 25, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Sheeri Cabral <scabral@mozilla.com> wrote:

> I'm all for this, too, if there's a clear directive and support for =
this infrastructure. Giving out an e-mail address is a great badge of =
honor, but even uses that are "routine" like sending out a large =
attachment to many people, can end up affecting all Mozilla e-mail. Are =
we backing up community members' emails too? If so, that's more =
resources and time spent by IT; if not, and there's a problem, we end up =
with a lot of unhappy Mozillians.=20

Sure.  FYI, I=92m thinking of the kinds of systems that e.g. US =
universities employ for alums.  This stuff could easily be outsourced.

=97da


0
David
10/25/2013 3:59:39 PM
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 08:40 -0700, :mrz wrote:
> I also agree there's a revocation process but I'm less clear on how you determine someone's no longer active.

I think David is right. Let's not try to over-complicate things. It's
better to have a well-defined policy on who gets a @mozilla.org alias
and keeps it forever (unless of course cases of abuse), than the other
way around.

Although I agree in principle with the "why only employees and reps?"
argument I think we should consider this as a try out phase. See how
that goes and how we can expand this to all active contributors.
Hopefully by that time we'll have a way to reliable determine if a
person is an active contributor.

~nikos
https://mozillians.org/u/comzeradd/


0
Nikos
10/25/2013 4:05:42 PM
On 2013/10/25 08:59, David Ascher wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Sheeri Cabral <scabral@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm all for this, too, if there's a clear directive and support for this infrastructure. Giving out an e-mail address is a great badge of honor, but even uses that are "routine" like sending out a large attachment to many people, can end up affecting all Mozilla e-mail. Are we backing up community members' emails too? If so, that's more resources and time spent by IT; if not, and there's a problem, we end up with a lot of unhappy Mozillians.
> Sure.  FYI, I�m thinking of the kinds of systems that e.g. US universities employ for alums.  This stuff could easily be outsourced.
Note that @mozilla.org addresses are currently email aliases 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_alias>, which means Mozilla 
transfers mail to and from them but doesn't store the mail. That still 
costs resources and time, but much less than if it were to also store 
the mail, as it does for @mozilla.com addresses.

-myk

0
Myk
10/25/2013 4:20:28 PM
To Nikos' point:=20

Yes, the rationale was precisely to have a phased approach and start =
distributing @mozilla.org to staff and Reps only, see how that it went =
and then include everyone once we were confident about the process.=20

So the aim was always to eventually distribute @mozilla.org to *all* =
Mozillians.=20

- w

---
William Quiviger
Mozilla Reps Council Member
https://reps.mozilla.org/u/wquiviger/


On Oct 25, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Nikos Roussos =
<comzeradd@mozilla-community.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 08:40 -0700, :mrz wrote:
>> I also agree there's a revocation process but I'm less clear on how =
you determine someone's no longer active.
>=20
> I think David is right. Let's not try to over-complicate things. It's
> better to have a well-defined policy on who gets a @mozilla.org alias
> and keeps it forever (unless of course cases of abuse), than the other
> way around.
>=20
> Although I agree in principle with the "why only employees and reps?"
> argument I think we should consider this as a try out phase. See how
> that goes and how we can expand this to all active contributors.
> Hopefully by that time we'll have a way to reliable determine if a
> person is an active contributor.
>=20
> ~nikos
> https://mozillians.org/u/comzeradd/
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

0
William
10/25/2013 4:31:47 PM
On Friday, October 25, 2013 11:59:39 AM UTC-4, David Ascher wrote:
> Sure.  FYI, I=92m thinking of the kinds of systems that e.g. US universit=
ies employ for alums.  This stuff could easily be outsourced.

There is still a cost involved..  This discussion should include the "at wh=
at cost are we willing to provide this service?" question as well.  We can =
work backward from there and figure out if there is a way to make it fit.  =
Also whose budget that would come from.
0
cshields
10/25/2013 4:37:56 PM
On 10/25/13 9:20 AM, Myk Melez wrote:
> Note that @mozilla.org addresses are currently email aliases

I actually think that's a plus. Neither employees nor other community 
members really need another full blown IMAP account, I'd imagine. An 
alias should suffice. Though sending outgoing mail with the right From: 
can be challenging depending on what primary provider you work with.

Fred


0
Fred
10/25/2013 4:56:14 PM
On Oct 25, 2013 9:40 AM, <cshields@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> On Friday, October 25, 2013 11:59:39 AM UTC-4, David Ascher wrote:
> > Sure.  FYI, I=92m thinking of the kinds of systems that e.g. US
universities employ for alums.  This stuff could easily be outsourced.
>
> There is still a cost involved..  This discussion should include the "at
what cost are we willing to provide this service?" question as well.  We
can work backward from there and figure out if there is a way to make it
fit.  Also whose budget that would come from.
>

If we just did aliases the cost would be almost nothing. Most mail
providers support treating aliases like a new address.
0
Benjamin
10/25/2013 5:03:09 PM
On Friday, October 25, 2013 1:03:09 PM UTC-4, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> If we just did aliases the cost would be almost nothing. Most mail
> providers support treating aliases like a new address.

In our current setup it actually is a bit more involved.  We still have som=
e one-off accounts going back to the early days that aren't just aliases, t=
hose that are aliases still go through a spam filter that we pay for (per a=
ccount), and mail that comes in to be relayed to a forwarded destination st=
ill traverses infrastructure that has to scale to meet demand unless we wer=
e to point MX for all of @mozilla.org to some outsourced entity.  Unfortuna=
tely, the cost is far from nothing.

I'm not trying to shoot this down, I want to make sure that we all are awar=
e that this can quickly become a significant investment, and then how do we=
 scale it to the vision that Mitchell gave us for our contributor base in t=
he years to come?
0
cshields
10/25/2013 5:14:57 PM
Yes, while I ignored the implementation in the original draft (co-drafted w=
ith Reps and finalized at the Madrid meeting... need to give credit where i=
t's due), I did imagine simple email aliases vs. hosted mail accounts.

In fact, I imagined a system largely driven via mozillians.org that would g=
enerate /etc/aliases or trigger API calls to some mail provider. Whatever v=
ouching process would be the trigger and users could self-manage destinatio=
n addresses for their @mozilla.org address.

I do like the "once a Mozillian, always a Mozillian" - the current list of =
@mozilla.org addresses certainly reflects that.
0
mrz
10/25/2013 5:20:18 PM
On Oct 25, 2013 10:15 AM, <cshields@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> On Friday, October 25, 2013 1:03:09 PM UTC-4, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> > If we just did aliases the cost would be almost nothing. Most mail
> > providers support treating aliases like a new address.
>
> In our current setup it actually is a bit more involved.  We still have
some one-off accounts going back to the early days that aren't just
aliases, those that are aliases still go through a spam filter that we pay
for (per account), and mail that comes in to be relayed to a forwarded
destination still traverses infrastructure that has to scale to meet demand
unless we were to point MX for all of @mozilla.org to some outsourced
entity.  Unfortunately, the cost is far from nothing.
>
> I'm not trying to shoot this down, I want to make sure that we all are
aware that this can quickly become a significant investment, and then how
do we scale it to the vision that Mitchell gave us for our contributor base
in the years to come?
>
I guess I would ask what the ROI is having hundreds of volunteers with a
more authentic communication channel.

I mean we have contributors right now using @gmail.com,
mozilla-peru.orgetc its fragmented.

Clearly other much smaller projects like GNOME saw value in such an
investment.

I think it brings us closer to "One Mozilla". Imagine that we have
contributors putting in part time hours on a volunteer basis and they do
not have an email address but a receptionist does?
0
Benjamin
10/25/2013 10:44:28 PM
On Oct 25, 2013, at 6:14 PM, cshields@mozilla.com wrote:

> I'm not trying to shoot this down, I want to make sure that we all are =
aware that this can quickly become a significant investment, and then =
how do we scale it to the vision that Mitchell gave us for our =
contributor base in the years to come?

If we agree value in a @mozilla.org identity, I=92m more than happy to =
build the business case for it. I had a board member suggest that he=92d =
gladly cash pay as his contribution in exchange for an address that he =
could =93wear proudly=94.

I truly don=92t believe that sourcing the money side should be a blocker =
to this conversation.  US universities provide this service because it =
leads to donations that far outweigh the opex.  We certainly shouldn=92t =
be talking about whose budget it would come from at this point, although =
I understand your fear that you=92d be expected to cover it.

=97da

0
David
10/25/2013 11:23:51 PM
No matter if budget is going to be a problem I do see the point in actually
budgeting for it and understanding the implementation costs. That might
inspire us to think of different implementations that work out better for
us, and at least uncover problems that need to be solved or decisions that
need to be made.  The paid for spam filter is an interesting problem.


On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:23 PM, David Ascher <da@mozilla.com> wrote:

>
> On Oct 25, 2013, at 6:14 PM, cshields@mozilla.com wrote:
>
> > I'm not trying to shoot this down, I want to make sure that we all are
> aware that this can quickly become a significant investment, and then how
> do we scale it to the vision that Mitchell gave us for our contributor ba=
se
> in the years to come?
>
> If we agree value in a @mozilla.org identity, I=92m more than happy to
> build the business case for it. I had a board member suggest that he=92d
> gladly cash pay as his contribution in exchange for an address that he
> could =93wear proudly=94.
>
> I truly don=92t believe that sourcing the money side should be a blocker =
to
> this conversation.  US universities provide this service because it leads
> to donations that far outweigh the opex.  We certainly shouldn=92t be tal=
king
> about whose budget it would come from at this point, although I understan=
d
> your fear that you=92d be expected to cover it.
>
> =97da
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
0
Majken
10/26/2013 3:25:33 PM
On 25/10/13 17:31, William Quiviger wrote:
> Yes, the rationale was precisely to have a phased approach and start
> distributing @mozilla.org to staff and Reps only, see how that it
> went and then include everyone once we were confident about the
> process.
> 
> So the aim was always to eventually distribute @mozilla.org to *all*
> Mozillians.

Assuming we use the definition of Mozillian as someone who:

* believes in the mission
* does something to actively advance it
* interacts with the Mozilla community

then I think that would be a large mistake.

Having an email address @projectname.org implies, in the open source
world, that you have a trusted position inside that organization.
@debian.org is for Debian developers. @apache.org is for Apache
committers. And so on.

Giving an @mozilla.org email address to all Mozillians (by the above
definition) would make it a pretty easy thing to get - which would both
devalue it, and also come with some reputational risk to Mozilla.

Gerv
0
Gervase
10/29/2013 2:01:26 PM
On 25/10/13 13:16, Gervase Markham wrote:
> At the moment, a discussion is going on about how we can create a set of
> trusted people who can take part in Mozilla-internal discussions on
> topics that we don't yet want shared with the press. It seems like the
> problem of who gets @mozilla.org email addresses is a similar problem.
> Perhaps the two could be combined? We need to have a big effort to
> figure out how to define this group, and then give them both the email
> addresses and the internal forum access.

At the Festival, I was encouraged to elaborate on this. I've talked
about my idea elsewhere, but here it is again:

There are now at least two reasons we need to define a subset of
Mozillians who are trusted by the community.

The first is that we want to have a discussion forum where we can talk
about sensitive subjects in a group larger than "employees" but smaller
than "public". We've needed this for ages, and we still need it. And we
need to define who's in and who's out, and how you decide.

The second is that we want to give out @mozilla.org email addresses to
people who we are confident will not use them to damage Mozilla's
reputation. This is also a trust issue. As we are finding out, we need
to define who's in and who's out, and how you decide.

My contention is that these two groups could be the same group.

In order to define this group well, we need to "encode" existing trust
relationships. Here is my proposal, which I call the 'Mafia' way of
building a trust network.

We seed the group with, say, twenty or so people whose status as
Mozillians is beyond doubt. We then say that anyone else can be admitted
to the group if they are endorsed (I won't say "vouched", as it's
confusing!) by two existing members. And if that person is found to have
broken a confidence or otherwise behaved in a way which leads to loss of
privileges or access, the two people who vouched for them also lose
those privileges, for a period of six months. (Hence, tongue-in-cheek,
'Mafia' - "if you cross us, we'll come after you _and_ your parents".)

This makes endorsing someone an action with real downsides, which is the
only way to ensure that endorsements will be carefully considered, and
people only endorse people they actively trust.

If I vouch for someone in mozillians.org and they later act highly
inappropriately, nothing bad happens to me. There's no downside to me
simply vouching for anyone who asks, which makes it very easy to get
vouched for. In order to build a real web of trust, we need to change that.

Gerv

0
Gervase
10/29/2013 2:14:24 PM
On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 14:01 +0000, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 25/10/13 17:31, William Quiviger wrote:
> > Yes, the rationale was precisely to have a phased approach and start
> > distributing @mozilla.org to staff and Reps only, see how that it
> > went and then include everyone once we were confident about the
> > process.
> > 
> > So the aim was always to eventually distribute @mozilla.org to *all*
> > Mozillians.
> 
> Assuming we use the definition of Mozillian as someone who:
> 
> * believes in the mission
> * does something to actively advance it
> * interacts with the Mozilla community
> 
> then I think that would be a large mistake.
> 
> Having an email address @projectname.org implies, in the open source
> world, that you have a trusted position inside that organization.
> @debian.org is for Debian developers. @apache.org is for Apache
> committers. And so on.

It usually means that you are a <random Open-Source project name>
contributor. For instance I have a mail address for Fedora Project and
FSFE since my very first contribution.

> Giving an @mozilla.org email address to all Mozillians (by the above
> definition) would make it a pretty easy thing to get - which would both
> devalue it, and also come with some reputational risk to Mozilla.

That's a valid concern, and that's why is better to take small steps
giving @mozilla.org aliases to paid stuff and reps for now.


~nikos

0
Nikos
10/29/2013 2:21:47 PM
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote:
> At the Festival, I was encouraged to elaborate on this. I've talked
> about my idea elsewhere, but here it is again:
>
> There are now at least two reasons we need to define a subset of
> Mozillians who are trusted by the community.
>
> The first is that we want to have a discussion forum where we can talk
> about sensitive subjects in a group larger than "employees" but smaller
> than "public". We've needed this for ages, and we still need it. And we
> need to define who's in and who's out, and how you decide.
>
> The second is that we want to give out @mozilla.org email addresses to
> people who we are confident will not use them to damage Mozilla's
> reputation. This is also a trust issue. As we are finding out, we need
> to define who's in and who's out, and how you decide.
>
> My contention is that these two groups could be the same group.

So far, sounds great.

> In order to define this group well, we need to "encode" existing trust
> relationships. Here is my proposal, which I call the 'Mafia' way of
> building a trust network.
>
> We seed the group with, say, twenty or so people whose status as
> Mozillians is beyond doubt. We then say that anyone else can be admitted
> to the group if they are endorsed (I won't say "vouched", as it's
> confusing!) by two existing members. And if that person is found to have
> broken a confidence or otherwise behaved in a way which leads to loss of
> privileges or access, the two people who vouched for them also lose
> those privileges, for a period of six months. (Hence, tongue-in-cheek,
> 'Mafia' - "if you cross us, we'll come after you _and_ your parents".)

I understand the need to do downsides, but this seems like a very
harsh penalty. It would be easy to vouch for someone at some point,
and at some point 5 years in the future, that someone does something
bad and gets banned. Is it still fair for the original vouching person
to be penalized for that?

It seems like timeliness of the vouching must play a role here. The
scheme I just came up with is, once you get 2 people to vouch for you,
you get 4 points to vouch with for others (i.e. limiting the amount of
vouches you can give out, adding some cost to vouching). But, vouches
deteriorate over time, so after, say, a year, your 2 initial vouches
are worth less than 1.0, and your access gets revoked unless you find
some people to vouch for you again. Since people may migrate to
different areas of the community, it may make sense to have other
people vouch for you this time compared to last time.

(Yeah, this gets complex. And probably needs its own thread. But it's
a good discussion to have.)

Cheers,

Dirkjan
0
Dirkjan
10/29/2013 3:05:07 PM
On Oct 29, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@ochtman.nl> =
wrote:

>> The first is that we want to have a discussion forum where we can =
talk
>> about sensitive subjects in a group larger than "employees" but =
smaller
>> than "public". We've needed this for ages, and we still need it. And =
we
>> need to define who's in and who's out, and how you decide.
>>=20
>> The second is that we want to give out @mozilla.org email addresses =
to
>> people who we are confident will not use them to damage Mozilla's
>> reputation. This is also a trust issue. As we are finding out, we =
need
>> to define who's in and who's out, and how you decide.
>>=20
>> My contention is that these two groups could be the same group.
>=20

The first is an ACL restriction among many.  It=92s not clear to me why =
we want to prioritize one permission (=91hear some kinds of news=92) =
above =91access to VPN=92, =91access to the t-shirt database=92, =91access=
 to =85=92.

Mozilla.org email adresses has, I claim, interesting potential both for =
fundraising and to =91make-people-feel-good=92.  (esp. if we make it =
easy for people to opt-in to a .sig that explains Mozilla, for example)

My counter-contention is we=92re more agile and impactful if we=92re =
willing to be generous w/ the latter while correct with the former.

As a thought experiment, I=92d be +1 on giving jwz a mozilla.org email =
address, but I doubt he should be in the former ACL group (until such =
time as he chooses to get more involved).

=97da
=20=
0
David
10/29/2013 3:15:24 PM
On 2013-10-29 10:14 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> We seed the group with, say, twenty or so people whose status as
> Mozillians is beyond doubt. We then say that anyone else can be admitted
> to the group if they are endorsed (I won't say "vouched", as it's
> confusing!) by two existing members. And if that person is found to have
> broken a confidence or otherwise behaved in a way which leads to loss of
> privileges or access, the two people who vouched for them also lose
> those privileges, for a period of six months. (Hence, tongue-in-cheek,
> 'Mafia' - "if you cross us, we'll come after you _and_ your parents".)
>
> This makes endorsing someone an action with real downsides, which is the
> only way to ensure that endorsements will be carefully considered, and
> people only endorse people they actively trust.
>
> If I vouch for someone in mozillians.org and they later act highly
> inappropriately, nothing bad happens to me. There's no downside to me
> simply vouching for anyone who asks, which makes it very easy to get
> vouched for. In order to build a real web of trust, we need to change 
> that.

I would support this proposal.  It maps well to how we handle other 
forms of trust (commit access, module ownership, etc), which has served 
us well as a project.  I share Dirkjan's concern that timeliness needs 
to be considered, however I think that can be dealt with through a 
probationary period (maybe a year) after which vouchers wouldn't pay a 
penalty.

My primary concern here is that, unlike the majority of open projects, 
Mozilla gets a lot of press attention and coverage. Anything we do that 
implies (whether correctly or not) that an individual represents Mozilla 
represents a risk we should balance against the benefit we believe we'll 
get from providing @mozilla.org addresses.

-- Mike
0
Mike
10/29/2013 3:18:43 PM
--x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Friday 2013-10-25 19:05 +0300, Nikos Roussos wrote:
> Although I agree in principle with the "why only employees and reps?"
> argument I think we should consider this as a try out phase. See how
> that goes and how we can expand this to all active contributors.
> Hopefully by that time we'll have a way to reliable determine if a
> person is an active contributor.

I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea of starting with only
employees and reps; I'd like to be able to include non-employee
contributors in areas other than the areas covered by the reps
program (regional events and marketing, as I understand it), and I'm
concerned that temporary things tend to become permanent.

-David

--=20
=F0=9D=84=9E   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   =
=F0=9D=84=82
=F0=9D=84=A2   Mozilla                          https://www.mozilla.org/   =
=F0=9D=84=82
             Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
             What I was walling in or walling out,
             And to whom I was like to give offense.
               - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)

--x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=Mh5T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn--
0
L
10/29/2013 3:54:19 PM
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--ltdswiDR4rWbe3eejL5iNfJJrGqagCcUC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

El 29/10/13 15:01, Gervase Markham escribi=F3:
> Assuming we use the definition of Mozillian as someone who:
>
> * believes in the mission
> * does something to actively advance it
> * interacts with the Mozilla community
>
> then I think that would be a large mistake.
>
> Having an email address @projectname.org implies, in the open source
> world, that you have a trusted position inside that organization.
> @debian.org is for Debian developers. @apache.org is for Apache
> committers. And so on.
>
> Giving an @mozilla.org email address to all Mozillians (by the above
> definition) would make it a pretty easy thing to get - which would both=

> devalue it, and also come with some reputational risk to Mozilla.
I agree because for me, right know at mozillians.org there is a lot of
people I don't consider an active mozillian, it's super easy to get
vouched by anyone.

@mozilla.org accounts should come with a fair use agreement, as commit
access or reps, and should be open to any mozillian (paid, non-paid,
rep, non-rep).

I like the endorse idea, but I think that if Reps Council approving a
double-endorsed mozillian to have an account should be enought. The fair
use agreement should take care of bad behaviors and remove this account
if violated.

So the SOP would be:

  * I open a @mozilla.org email resquest and cc two already @mozilla.org
    to endorse me.
  * Reps Council IT Task force evaluates the request.
  * If it's OK, they send me the agreements to sign (probably employees
    and reps agreements already cover this fair use policy).
  * I sign the agreement and attach it back.
  * Reps Council gives the OK to IT to create the account and send me
    the details.=20

Regards.

--=20
Rub=E9n Mart=EDn [Nukeador]
Mozilla Reps Mentor
http://www.mozilla-hispano.org
http://twitter.com/mozilla_hispano
http://facebook.com/mozillahispano


--ltdswiDR4rWbe3eejL5iNfJJrGqagCcUC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlJwBZ0ACgkQF+Cr28b0I+YKGwCfV1JLx0+BqTZJNg6gAVkSUq3n
YpYAoPIwXbYWnAGUvF3FF61VyUdEbm14
=QxjK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ltdswiDR4rWbe3eejL5iNfJJrGqagCcUC--
0
ISO
10/29/2013 6:59:41 PM
Hi,

PMJI.

[short]
I've read this thread and I'm getting the impression that '@mozilla.org
for every Mozillian' is something that really shouldn't be happening
no matter how some feel it should. IOW, just give '@mozilla.org' to
Mozilla reps.
[/short]

[long]
There is an idea:  '@mozilla.org' to every Mozillian.

Now 'we' need to add a bunch of obstacles and hoops in the way of
attaining that goal.

  Rationales for doing the obstacles and hoops:

   - (Not quoting anyone here.. just a feeling) "After all, we don't
      want rapscallions and bad people ruining Mozilla's reputation."

   - We should just limit it to Mozilla Reps and paid staff first.
         - just to test the 'waters' and to ensure that there's
           infrastructure to scale out (for the possibility of
           adding every Mozillian)

"I have a bunch of candies for everyone.  But first, you need
to sign a form, and get approval..etc.."  Get the idea?
I mean if you have something that you'd like to give to people,
but then find a bunch of rationales for preventing it being
given to 'bad apples',  you're just setting up yourself for
churning.  I mean.  As you increase the # of recipients of
an item, you're bound to give it to someone who really shouldn't
be having it.

My opinion?  Just permit Mozilla Reps to have the 'mozilla.org'
email address and be done with it.  Paid staff already have
the 'mozilla.com' address so having 'mozilla.org' for them
is just redundant.  The infrastructure required isn't as
hefty as for the whole Mozillian group(of course, it also depends
on how the 'mozilla.org' email address works. Is it just an alias,
or a full fledged email address?).

I don't feel any less of being a Mozillian without the 'mozilla.org'
email address.  Just as having one doesn't make me more Mozillian.
[/long]

Now as I write this, I wonder if I just made the cut for poster
boy for Mark Twain's quote:

   "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool
    than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Edmund
0
Edmund
10/30/2013 1:21:14 AM
On 10/29/2013, 11:18 AM, Mike Connor wrote:
> On 2013-10-29 10:14 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> We seed the group with, say, twenty or so people whose status as
>> Mozillians is beyond doubt. We then say that anyone else can be admitted
>> to the group if they are endorsed (I won't say "vouched", as it's
>> confusing!) by two existing members. And if that person is found to have
>> broken a confidence or otherwise behaved in a way which leads to loss of
>> privileges or access, the two people who vouched for them also lose
>> those privileges, for a period of six months. (Hence, tongue-in-cheek,
>> 'Mafia' - "if you cross us, we'll come after you _and_ your parents".) 
[...]
> I would support this proposal.  It maps well to how we handle other 
> forms of trust (commit access, module ownership, etc), which has 
> served us well as a project.  I share Dirkjan's concern that 
> timeliness needs to be considered, however I think that can be dealt 
> with through a probationary period (maybe a year) after which vouchers 
> wouldn't pay a penalty.

I support Gerv's proposal as well, for reasons that may be only 
semantically different from Connor's that I'm going to elaborate anyway: 
that it meets a minimalist expression of our immediate needs, that it's 
built on people trusting people rather than on an elaborate policy, and 
that by virtue of that we'll be able to ship a viable implementation 
quickly without much administrative overhead.

Move quickly, trust our people, minimum viable everything.

- mhoye
0
Mike
10/30/2013 1:27:37 PM
On 29/10/13 15:15, David Ascher wrote:
>>> My contention is that these two groups could be the same group.
> 
> The first is an ACL restriction among many.  It’s not clear to me why
> we want to prioritize one permission (‘hear some kinds of news’)
> above ‘access to VPN’, ‘access to the t-shirt database’, ‘access to
> …’.

Working out a trusted set of people for a discussion is a _social_
problem. Yes, technically, it's a permissions bit somewhere, but the
difficult problem is deciding who gets it.

The other things you list are much more prosaic and there are more
obvious criteria for deciding who gets access to the t-shirt database
(people who need to know in order for t-shirts to be shipped, and no-one
else) than deciding who gets to take part in confidential discussions in
a project which strives for openness but sometimes has to be non-public
about some things.

> My counter-contention is we’re more agile and impactful if we’re
> willing to be generous w/ the latter while correct with the former.
> 
> As a thought experiment, I’d be +1 on giving jwz a mozilla.org email
> address, but I doubt he should be in the former ACL group (until such
> time as he chooses to get more involved).

If we decide @mozilla.org email addresses are for life, then I'd be
happy with the exit criteria for the two groups being different. But it
still makes sense to me to unify the entry criteria.

However, that sense fundamentally rests on my belief that we should give
@mozilla.org email addresses to trusted people. If the consensus is we
should be more generous than that, then yes, the criteria will need to
be different.

Gerv

0
Gervase
10/30/2013 2:10:45 PM
I think something to keep in mind is that we don't have to find THE 20
people who are best for this group, we simply need to find A set of 20
people who fit the criteria and who are willing to plow through a whole
bunch of these requests. So we are definitely not saying that these 20
people are the most Mozillian of all Mozillians, but that they are
qualified to handle this task. They should be distributed between regions
and teams as much as possible to make sure the trust spreads as evenly as
possible through Mozilla and doesn't bias for eg North American developers.

I also want to suggest maybe there needs to be a time period before a
person can vouch for new members? I think this is also normal in this type
of trust system and it also minimizes the damage to the trust structure if
someone makes it through by mistake.

Maybe Gerv could start an etherpad to track the proposal and proposals for
the proposal? ;)

Or looping back we seem to be throwing out some of the work mrz and Reps
have done, should we ask those people who already did this work to alter
their proposal to reflect what's been discussed here?


On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 29/10/13 15:15, David Ascher wrote:
> >>> My contention is that these two groups could be the same group.
> >
> > The first is an ACL restriction among many.  It=92s not clear to me why
> > we want to prioritize one permission (=91hear some kinds of news=92)
> > above =91access to VPN=92, =91access to the t-shirt database=92, =91acc=
ess to
> > =85=92.
>
> Working out a trusted set of people for a discussion is a _social_
> problem. Yes, technically, it's a permissions bit somewhere, but the
> difficult problem is deciding who gets it.
>
> The other things you list are much more prosaic and there are more
> obvious criteria for deciding who gets access to the t-shirt database
> (people who need to know in order for t-shirts to be shipped, and no-one
> else) than deciding who gets to take part in confidential discussions in
> a project which strives for openness but sometimes has to be non-public
> about some things.
>
> > My counter-contention is we=92re more agile and impactful if we=92re
> > willing to be generous w/ the latter while correct with the former.
> >
> > As a thought experiment, I=92d be +1 on giving jwz a mozilla.org email
> > address, but I doubt he should be in the former ACL group (until such
> > time as he chooses to get more involved).
>
> If we decide @mozilla.org email addresses are for life, then I'd be
> happy with the exit criteria for the two groups being different. But it
> still makes sense to me to unify the entry criteria.
>
> However, that sense fundamentally rests on my belief that we should give
> @mozilla.org email addresses to trusted people. If the consensus is we
> should be more generous than that, then yes, the criteria will need to
> be different.
>
> Gerv
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
0
Majken
10/30/2013 5:50:36 PM
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Majken Connor <majken@gmail.com> wrote:
> I also want to suggest maybe there needs to be a time period before a person
> can vouch for new members? I think this is also normal in this type of trust
> system and it also minimizes the damage to the trust structure if someone
> makes it through by mistake.

Yes, though maybe not while the initial seeding is going on?

Cheers,

Dirkjan
0
Dirkjan
10/30/2013 7:08:02 PM
On 2013-10-30 3:08 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Majken Connor <majken@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I also want to suggest maybe there needs to be a time period before a person
>> can vouch for new members? I think this is also normal in this type of trust
>> system and it also minimizes the damage to the trust structure if someone
>> makes it through by mistake.
> Yes, though maybe not while the initial seeding is going on?

I don't think it'd hurt us too much to have this roll out slowly, rather 
than have hundreds of account requests pour in over the first week.

-- Mike
0
Mike
10/30/2013 7:18:40 PM
On 29/10/13 15:05, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> I understand the need to do downsides, but this seems like a very
> harsh penalty. It would be easy to vouch for someone at some point,
> and at some point 5 years in the future, that someone does something
> bad and gets banned. Is it still fair for the original vouching person
> to be penalized for that?

Good point. Perhaps the connection should expire after a year.

> It seems like timeliness of the vouching must play a role here. The
> scheme I just came up with is, once you get 2 people to vouch for you,
> you get 4 points to vouch with for others (i.e. limiting the amount of
> vouches you can give out, adding some cost to vouching). But, vouches
> deteriorate over time, so after, say, a year, your 2 initial vouches
> are worth less than 1.0, and your access gets revoked unless you find
> some people to vouch for you again. Since people may migrate to
> different areas of the community, it may make sense to have other
> people vouch for you this time compared to last time.

That seems more complex than the above suggestion. Do you think simply
disconnecting voucher and vouchee after a year (i.e. after that, you
stand on your own two feet) would work?

Gerv


0
Gervase
11/1/2013 4:49:32 PM
On 30/10/13 17:50, Majken Connor wrote:
> I think something to keep in mind is that we don't have to find THE 20
> people who are best for this group,

Right.

> I also want to suggest maybe there needs to be a time period before a
> person can vouch for new members? I think this is also normal in this type
> of trust system and it also minimizes the damage to the trust structure if
> someone makes it through by mistake.

Nice idea. Although that would slow down the initial seeding. What sort
of time period do you think would be appropriate?

> Maybe Gerv could start an etherpad to track the proposal and proposals for
> the proposal? ;)

Good idea. I will do that when I get to work on Monday.

> Or looping back we seem to be throwing out some of the work mrz and Reps
> have done, should we ask those people who already did this work to alter
> their proposal to reflect what's been discussed here?

I'm sure they are reading :-) I think it makes sense to come up with a
concrete counter-proposal, and then we can discuss its merits.

Gerv


0
Gervase
11/1/2013 4:51:11 PM
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 29/10/13 15:05, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> > I understand the need to do downsides, but this seems like a very
> > harsh penalty. It would be easy to vouch for someone at some point,
> > and at some point 5 years in the future, that someone does something
> > bad and gets banned. Is it still fair for the original vouching person
> > to be penalized for that?
>
> Good point. Perhaps the connection should expire after a year.
>

My suggestion would be to follow Ubuntu's foot steps by expiring annually
but allowing people to renew in Mozillians.org. In Ubuntu we have
"Membership" and each year it expires but you can login to Launchpad and
tick to renew for another year. This should be easy to add as a feature to
Mozillians.org

Maybe add a e-mail group or something with auto-expiring membership heck it
might make sense to offer a auto-expiration feature for all groups on
Mozillians.org to ensure only active contributors are in groups?


>
> > It seems like timeliness of the vouching must play a role here. The
> > scheme I just came up with is, once you get 2 people to vouch for you,
> > you get 4 points to vouch with for others (i.e. limiting the amount of
> > vouches you can give out, adding some cost to vouching). But, vouches
> > deteriorate over time, so after, say, a year, your 2 initial vouches
> > are worth less than 1.0, and your access gets revoked unless you find
> > some people to vouch for you again. Since people may migrate to
> > different areas of the community, it may make sense to have other
> > people vouch for you this time compared to last time.
>
> That seems more complex than the above suggestion. Do you think simply
> disconnecting voucher and vouchee after a year (i.e. after that, you
> stand on your own two feet) would work?
>
> Gerv
>
>
>
All this vouching seems simply like adding trivial work for others. I
suggest we create a group on Mozillians.org and add a auto-expire feature
and renew membership feature to the platform that all group admins can
choose to enable.

People wanting a e-mail can join the group and it will be administered by
the POC for adding email accounts. In order to join the group a Mozillian
much have been vouched.



-- 
Benjamin Kerensa
Mozilla Rep
http://mozillausa.org
0
Benjamin
11/1/2013 4:59:05 PM
On 01/11/13 16:59, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> All this vouching seems simply like adding trivial work for others. I
> suggest we create a group on Mozillians.org and add a auto-expire feature
> and renew membership feature to the platform that all group admins can
> choose to enable.
> 
> People wanting a e-mail can join the group and it will be administered by
> the POC for adding email accounts. In order to join the group a Mozillian
> much have been vouched.

This last sentence is precisely what we are all discussing :-)

There is a body of opinion which feels that "being vouched" in the
current mozillians.org is too low a bar for getting an @mozilla.org
email address, given the reputational risk that giving them out
represents to Mozilla. If you think otherwise, then make your case - but
at the moment, you seem to be treating "who can get one" as a minor
detail to be tacked on to the end of a detailed exposition of how to
administer it. Whereas, who can get one is actually the big question :-)
The technical implementation is the trivial bit.

Gerv
0
Gervase
11/1/2013 5:07:02 PM
Benjamin,

I agree it's a sort of busy-work, but I'm sure it will happen faster than
adding a feature into Mozillians.

I don't think we should be worried about initial seeding being slow. Slow
is good, it lets us see if our plan had blind spots. Things take a LOT more
time to get into motion than it seems. Think about how long we've been
talking about giving out email addresses to community. If doing it right
means it'll take another 6 months before it's properly seeded and accounts
are getting into people's hands I think that's a much better outcome than
doing it quick and dirty and it being a failure.

Case in point, Mozillians was supposed to have this trust structure and it
was too easy to establish trust (one vouch, you can vouch right away). Now
we have to reinvent the wheel. Not necessarily a bad thing, I think it's ok
that Mozillians has turned out this way, but I don't think that was the
original intent.


On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 01/11/13 16:59, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> > All this vouching seems simply like adding trivial work for others. I
> > suggest we create a group on Mozillians.org and add a auto-expire feature
> > and renew membership feature to the platform that all group admins can
> > choose to enable.
> >
> > People wanting a e-mail can join the group and it will be administered by
> > the POC for adding email accounts. In order to join the group a Mozillian
> > much have been vouched.
>
> This last sentence is precisely what we are all discussing :-)
>
> There is a body of opinion which feels that "being vouched" in the
> current mozillians.org is too low a bar for getting an @mozilla.org
> email address, given the reputational risk that giving them out
> represents to Mozilla. If you think otherwise, then make your case - but
> at the moment, you seem to be treating "who can get one" as a minor
> detail to be tacked on to the end of a detailed exposition of how to
> administer it. Whereas, who can get one is actually the big question :-)
> The technical implementation is the trivial bit.
>
> Gerv
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
0
Majken
11/1/2013 5:34:26 PM
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 01/11/13 16:59, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> > All this vouching seems simply like adding trivial work for others. I
> > suggest we create a group on Mozillians.org and add a auto-expire featu=
re
> > and renew membership feature to the platform that all group admins can
> > choose to enable.
> >
> > People wanting a e-mail can join the group and it will be administered =
by
> > the POC for adding email accounts. In order to join the group a Mozilli=
an
> > much have been vouched.
>
> This last sentence is precisely what we are all discussing :-)
>
> There is a body of opinion which feels that "being vouched" in the
> current mozillians.org is too low a bar for getting an @mozilla.org
> email address, given the reputational risk that giving them out
> represents to Mozilla. If you think otherwise, then make your case - but
> at the moment, you seem to be treating "who can get one" as a minor
> detail to be tacked on to the end of a detailed exposition of how to
> administer it. Whereas, who can get one is actually the big question :-)
> The technical implementation is the trivial bit.
>
> Gerv
>
>

I do think otherwise and although I'm not sure if my case is convincing but
in my honest opinion if folks think vouching being enough is the bar being
set to low well then perhaps we set the bar to low for people being
deserving of a vouch.

To me vouching is more than just signaling someone has made a contribution
to Mozilla but that they have made a sustaining contributions and deserve
the trust of the community and project.

Vouch
*v.* *vouched*, *vouch=B7ing*, *vouch=B7es*
*1. * To give personal assurances; give a guarantee: vouch for an old
friend's trustworthiness.

When people vouch someone they are guaranteeing that the person is
trustworthy and a sustained good contributor IMHO.
0
Benjamin
11/1/2013 10:39:49 PM
> Or looping back we seem to be throwing out some of the work mrz and Reps
> have done, should we ask those people who already did this work to alter
> their proposal to reflect what's been discussed here?

The entire intent of the draft proposal was to start this very conversation! Without any draft we'd have no starting point.

That the draft lives in wiki.mozilla.org under my User:Mzeier is just an artifact of the fact that I started the draft. The existing draft (https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Mrz/mozilla-org) is open for edits.
0
mrz
11/2/2013 5:33:55 AM
On 01/11/13 22:39, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> To me vouching is more than just signaling someone has made a contribution
> to Mozilla but that they have made a sustaining contributions and deserve
> the trust of the community and project.

But that's the thing - you say "to me". I would assert that it's obvious
that not many people share this view (although I do), and that because
what it means to vouch for someone was not clearly defined early on, the
bar has historically been very low. And even if we raise it now, we have
a big grandfathering problem.

> When people vouch someone they are guaranteeing that the person is
> trustworthy and a sustained good contributor IMHO.

Do you really think that all or most existing mozillians.org vouches had
that level of trust associated with them?

Gerv

0
Gervase
11/4/2013 6:40:30 PM
I feel confident in asserting that many of the vouches on
mozillians.orgwere just "I know this person!"

But I also think simply adding the responsibility aspect of vouching, ie "I
know this person!" + "I agree to be held responsible for their actions for
x period of time" would have made a giant impact on who was vouched by
whom.

I think we don't necessarily need to worry about moving the bar for the
first half because that is built in to the second half. I'm not going to
agree to put my contributions to Mozilla on the line for someone who I've
seen posting on a newsgroup once or twice. To know someone well enough to
vouch for them will mean I've had to have worked with them, which means
they would have had to be contributing to Mozilla in a significant enough
way for me to feel confident enough in them.

The outlier is someone who is bringing a friend into Mozilla, they will
already have personal trust. I think another time limit might be useful
here. Must have had a Mozillians account for at least x amount of time.
Sometimes a timeline is artificial, but I think it's ok in this case
because ideally we are granting emails to people who will continue to use
them for Mozilla contributions. A timeline will help show if the person has
come in to contribute to one project then move on, ie if they are just
visiting town or if they've decided to move here ;)


On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 01/11/13 22:39, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> > To me vouching is more than just signaling someone has made a
> contribution
> > to Mozilla but that they have made a sustaining contributions and deserve
> > the trust of the community and project.
>
> But that's the thing - you say "to me". I would assert that it's obvious
> that not many people share this view (although I do), and that because
> what it means to vouch for someone was not clearly defined early on, the
> bar has historically been very low. And even if we raise it now, we have
> a big grandfathering problem.
>
> > When people vouch someone they are guaranteeing that the person is
> > trustworthy and a sustained good contributor IMHO.
>
> Do you really think that all or most existing mozillians.org vouches had
> that level of trust associated with them?
>
> Gerv
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
0
Majken
11/4/2013 6:54:25 PM
On 11/4/2013, 1:40 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Do you really think that all or most existing mozillians.org vouches 
> had that level of trust associated with them?

For what it's worth, we've had at least one occurrence - the Thunderbird 
announcement - where an email sent only to the "vouched mozillians" list 
found its way to the usual valley-rag techblogs within hours. So 
treating "vouched mozillians" as some sort of LDAP security group is not 
a plan that can be made to work without leaving a lot of scorched earth 
in its wake.

- mhoye
0
Mike
11/4/2013 7:02:23 PM
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--HrOKcdFBbFLJxgXMo9lmEXN3TKlRrFOm2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

El 04/11/13 20:02, Mike Hoye escribi=F3:
> For what it's worth, we've had at least one occurrence - the
> Thunderbird announcement - where an email sent only to the "vouched
> mozillians" list found its way to the usual valley-rag techblogs
> within hours.
Well, I think the case you are referring to is not clear the the leak
came from a vouched mozillian that wasn't "trusted".

For that reason everyone should pass this "trusted" filter, even
employees. The employee status doesn't give you the trusted status
automatically.

Regards.

--=20
Rub=E9n Mart=EDn [Nukeador]
Mozilla Reps Mentor
http://www.mozilla-hispano.org
http://twitter.com/mozilla_hispano
http://facebook.com/mozillahispano



--HrOKcdFBbFLJxgXMo9lmEXN3TKlRrFOm2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlJ4FGAACgkQF+Cr28b0I+ZaKwCfdZpER7LQ2sTNjNaj0FDEo1lK
m8AAoPCdQdYtxNgHqsSh4QEpPLYa2HaW
=7Uup
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--HrOKcdFBbFLJxgXMo9lmEXN3TKlRrFOm2--
0
ISO
11/4/2013 9:40:48 PM
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--LxMjLPifRhVVQf5CUkC3frdrclqor38a4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

El 04/11/13 19:54, Majken Connor escribi=F3:
> I think we don't necessarily need to worry about moving the bar for the=

> first half because that is built in to the second half. I'm not going t=
o
> agree to put my contributions to Mozilla on the line for someone who I'=
ve
> seen posting on a newsgroup once or twice. To know someone well enough =
to
> vouch for them will mean I've had to have worked with them, which means=

> they would have had to be contributing to Mozilla in a significant enou=
gh
> way for me to feel confident enough in them.
At Mozilla Hispano we are going to stablish a policy where new people
are not encouraged to create a mozillian profile till they get
"graduated", which means they have been working for some time in the
community and they have finished their mentorship process.

Regards.

--=20
Rub=E9n Mart=EDn [Nukeador]
Mozilla Reps Mentor
http://www.mozilla-hispano.org
http://twitter.com/mozilla_hispano
http://facebook.com/mozillahispano



--LxMjLPifRhVVQf5CUkC3frdrclqor38a4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlJ4FNcACgkQF+Cr28b0I+bIkgCfeoTBseKs/JVfNL1SSzyBAI4k
PX8AoK6PwlBaXHgKDjcZzK0Ts8Y1usjC
=b2CB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--LxMjLPifRhVVQf5CUkC3frdrclqor38a4--
0
ISO
11/4/2013 9:42:47 PM
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--KsreO8Ma45h9b6ovecvElpqfa6dCwbXgW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 04/11/13 18:54, Majken Connor wrote:
> The outlier is someone who is bringing a friend into Mozilla, they will=

> already have personal trust. I think another time limit might be useful=

> here. Must have had a Mozillians account for at least x amount of time.=

> Sometimes a timeline is artificial, but I think it's ok in this case
> because ideally we are granting emails to people who will continue to u=
se
> them for Mozilla contributions. A timeline will help show if the person=
 has
> come in to contribute to one project then move on, ie if they are just
> visiting town or if they've decided to move here ;)

Might that already be covered by the Mafia proposal? While I might trust
my friend with my wallet, for example, does that necessarily mean I
trust them to know what Mozilla is, and trust them to contribute? I'm
not sure.

I see here a possible case whereby Mozillians have trust in a potential
contributor, but that potential contributor hasn't actually contributed
yet. Do we need to include in the Mafia system some requirement for
evidence of prior contribution, or 'punishment' for a voucher who
vouches for someone who hasn't contributed yet? (Or does the timeline
solve this problem?)

~Leo


--KsreO8Ma45h9b6ovecvElpqfa6dCwbXgW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
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=vOJa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--KsreO8Ma45h9b6ovecvElpqfa6dCwbXgW--
0
Leo
11/5/2013 2:19:35 PM
Getting back to emails, because I don't think you need to opt in to this
inner circle to be able to speak for mozilla or deserve an email - what
would be the abuse of the email that could get it revoked? Does the
vouching system still work for emails if there isn't some responsibility
attached?


On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Leo McArdle <leo@mozilla.org.uk> wrote:

> On 04/11/13 18:54, Majken Connor wrote:
> > The outlier is someone who is bringing a friend into Mozilla, they will
> > already have personal trust. I think another time limit might be useful
> > here. Must have had a Mozillians account for at least x amount of time.
> > Sometimes a timeline is artificial, but I think it's ok in this case
> > because ideally we are granting emails to people who will continue to use
> > them for Mozilla contributions. A timeline will help show if the person
> has
> > come in to contribute to one project then move on, ie if they are just
> > visiting town or if they've decided to move here ;)
>
> Might that already be covered by the Mafia proposal? While I might trust
> my friend with my wallet, for example, does that necessarily mean I
> trust them to know what Mozilla is, and trust them to contribute? I'm
> not sure.
>
> I see here a possible case whereby Mozillians have trust in a potential
> contributor, but that potential contributor hasn't actually contributed
> yet. Do we need to include in the Mafia system some requirement for
> evidence of prior contribution, or 'punishment' for a voucher who
> vouches for someone who hasn't contributed yet? (Or does the timeline
> solve this problem?)
>
> ~Leo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
>
0
Majken
11/7/2013 4:52:09 PM
The why of this email proposal isn't clear to me and I'd like to think thro=
ugh how it supports the million Mozillians goal.  There seems to be two dif=
ferent thoughts:

* Is it to recognize an active and/or trusted group of people for their con=
tribution? (The badge of honor model)

* Is it something to give out more generously so we reach new people who be=
lieve in what we're doing but haven't gotten deeply involved yet? (Ascher's=
 university email addresses that lead to donations model)

Those same options are showing up in the discussions about 'What does Mozil=
lian mean?'.  Is that name for a small group that meet certain criteria or =
is it for a larger group that self-identifies with our mission?

If we think the word 'Mozillians' should be applied broadly because we need=
 to be inclusive to grow bigger and this helps bring future contributors to=
 us, that seems relevant to this email discussion.

If we think 'Mozillians' should be applied to the active and core group of =
people that believe in the mission, take action today to advance it and int=
eract with other community members, that seems relevant too.

I would encourage everyone on this thread to help answer the 'What does Moz=
illian mean?' question and then revisit how the answer informs this.  To he=
lp with that, here are three recent blog posts to read and comment on:

http://blog.gerv.net/2013/10/what-does-mozillian-mean/

http://hoosteeno.com/2013/10/22/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-mozillian/

http://davidwboswell.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/what-does-mozillian-mean/

Having clearer definitions will also help us implement this regardless of w=
here the line is drawn.  As someone said earlier, we don't have a reliable =
way to determine who active contributors are right now and that's largely t=
o do with having an unclear definition.

Thanks,
David
0
davidweldonboswell
11/8/2013 8:55:21 PM
=46rom a Mozilla Reps perspective, the rationale of having a =
@mozilla.org email is primarily a practical one, in that as official =
representatives of Mozilla in their region, having an official mozilla =
email makes outreach and communication easier with local insitutions, =
potential partners, etc... The primary aim is therefore not to =
recognise/reward the Rep's efforts with a mozilla email, but to support =
them.=20

- w

---
William Quiviger
Mozilla Reps Council Member
https://reps.mozilla.org/u/wquiviger/


=20
On Nov 8, 2013, at 9:55 PM, davidweldonboswell@gmail.com wrote:

> The why of this email proposal isn't clear to me and I'd like to think =
through how it supports the million Mozillians goal.  There seems to be =
two different thoughts:
>=20
> * Is it to recognize an active and/or trusted group of people for =
their contribution? (The badge of honor model)
>=20
> * Is it something to give out more generously so we reach new people =
who believe in what we're doing but haven't gotten deeply involved yet? =
(Ascher's university email addresses that lead to donations model)
>=20
> Those same options are showing up in the discussions about 'What does =
Mozillian mean?'.  Is that name for a small group that meet certain =
criteria or is it for a larger group that self-identifies with our =
mission?
>=20
> If we think the word 'Mozillians' should be applied broadly because we =
need to be inclusive to grow bigger and this helps bring future =
contributors to us, that seems relevant to this email discussion.
>=20
> If we think 'Mozillians' should be applied to the active and core =
group of people that believe in the mission, take action today to =
advance it and interact with other community members, that seems =
relevant too.
>=20
> I would encourage everyone on this thread to help answer the 'What =
does Mozillian mean?' question and then revisit how the answer informs =
this.  To help with that, here are three recent blog posts to read and =
comment on:
>=20
> http://blog.gerv.net/2013/10/what-does-mozillian-mean/
>=20
> http://hoosteeno.com/2013/10/22/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-mozillian/
>=20
> =
http://davidwboswell.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/what-does-mozillian-mean/
>=20
> Having clearer definitions will also help us implement this regardless =
of where the line is drawn.  As someone said earlier, we don't have a =
reliable way to determine who active contributors are right now and =
that's largely to do with having an unclear definition.
>=20
> Thanks,
> David
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance





0
William
11/12/2013 12:29:17 PM
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 6:29:17 AM UTC-6, William Quiviger wrote:
> From a Mozilla Reps perspective, the rationale of having a @mozilla.org e=
mail is primarily a practical one, in that as official representatives of M=
ozilla in their region, having an official mozilla email makes outreach and=
 communication easier with local insitutions, potential partners, etc... Th=
e primary aim is therefore not to recognise/reward the Rep's efforts with a=
 mozilla email, but to support them.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> - w
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ---
>=20
> William Quiviger
>=20
> Mozilla Reps Council Member
>=20
> https://reps.mozilla.org/u/wquiviger/
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
> On Nov 8, 2013, at 9:55 PM, davidweldonboswell@gmail.com wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > The why of this email proposal isn't clear to me and I'd like to think =
through how it supports the million Mozillians goal.  There seems to be two=
 different thoughts:
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > * Is it to recognize an active and/or trusted group of people for their=
 contribution? (The badge of honor model)
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > * Is it something to give out more generously so we reach new people wh=
o believe in what we're doing but haven't gotten deeply involved yet? (Asch=
er's university email addresses that lead to donations model)
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > Those same options are showing up in the discussions about 'What does M=
ozillian mean?'.  Is that name for a small group that meet certain criteria=
 or is it for a larger group that self-identifies with our mission?
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > If we think the word 'Mozillians' should be applied broadly because we =
need to be inclusive to grow bigger and this helps bring future contributor=
s to us, that seems relevant to this email discussion.
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > If we think 'Mozillians' should be applied to the active and core group=
 of people that believe in the mission, take action today to advance it and=
 interact with other community members, that seems relevant too.
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > I would encourage everyone on this thread to help answer the 'What does=
 Mozillian mean?' question and then revisit how the answer informs this.  T=
o help with that, here are three recent blog posts to read and comment on:
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > http://blog.gerv.net/2013/10/what-does-mozillian-mean/
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > http://hoosteeno.com/2013/10/22/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-mozillian/
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > http://davidwboswell.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/what-does-mozillian-mean/
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > Having clearer definitions will also help us implement this regardless =
of where the line is drawn.  As someone said earlier, we don't have a relia=
ble way to determine who active contributors are right now and that's large=
ly to do with having an unclear definition.
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > Thanks,
>=20
> > David
>=20
> > _______________________________________________
>=20
> > governance mailing list
>=20
> > governance@lists.mozilla.org
>=20
> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Hello,

I agree with William Quiviger on his last email regarding outreach and comm=
unications for Mozilla Reps.  Since, Mozilla Reps are official representati=
ves, why not have such email address? I understand, you want to make it cle=
ar for no misunderstandings regarding staff/volunteers.  I believe it would=
 better support the reps regarding communications out in the community.


Robert T. Sayles
Mozilla Rep | Mozilla
rtsayles@gmail.com email | https://reps.mozilla.org/u/rtsayles/ website


Notice: This message is intended for the addressee only and may
contain privileged and/or confidential information. Use or
dissemination by anyone other than the intended recipient is
prohibited.
=20


0
Robert
11/20/2013 7:39:58 PM
I wanted to call out that a similar discussion has been happening on the compatibility mailing list.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.compatibility/tfH3ndokti4

To summarize, some sort of "official" email address would benefit our Web Openers in making contact with web properties to help resolve web compatibility issues.

Now, my own points. Would @mozilla-reps.org or @reps.mozilla.org addresses sit better with people?

-Brad
0
brad
11/25/2013 4:10:52 PM
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--xHIvCkOO3LEkI7umau3an8bStefjqhJtU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

El 25/11/13 17:10, brad@lassey.us escribi=F3:
> To summarize, some sort of "official" email address would benefit our W=
eb Openers in making contact with web properties to help resolve web comp=
atibility issues.
>
> Now, my own points. Would @mozilla-reps.org or @reps.mozilla.org addres=
ses sit better with people?
We have been using community email addresses (@mozilla-hispano.org) for
doing official contacts with third parties or partners and we never had
any issue, but I understand that this can differ from country to country.=


What I mean is that some situations can be solved without the need of a
@mozilla.org email address, in other cases it would be nice to have.

Regards.

--=20
Rub=E9n Mart=EDn [Nukeador]
Mozilla Reps Mentor
http://www.mozilla-hispano.org
http://twitter.com/mozilla_hispano
http://facebook.com/mozillahispano



--xHIvCkOO3LEkI7umau3an8bStefjqhJtU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlKTnY4ACgkQF+Cr28b0I+bZ+QCgu6JLwV5qOyETjvLjFMpr1qKc
XooAoIyIjB68TcPmo1HCFfTZDisboDbO
=6A7r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--xHIvCkOO3LEkI7umau3an8bStefjqhJtU--
0
ISO
11/25/2013 6:57:18 PM
I am probably late to this thread, but as a former intern I and quite a few others have suggested this this summer about opening up @mozillians.org email address to verified contributors, if @mozilla.org and @mozilla.com shall be reserved.

I personally like to keep @mozilla.org for MoFo and of course @mozilla.com will continue to be for MoCo. The distinction allows outsiders to know the role of the owner of this email alias.

Mind you that as an ACM member I get @acm.org alias (anyone can be an ACM member). 
0
gokoproject
12/9/2013 7:56:01 PM
On 09/12/13 11:56, gokoproject@gmail.com wrote:
> I personally like to keep @mozilla.org for MoFo 

MoFo currently use @mozillafoundation.org.

> and of course
> @mozilla.com will continue to be for MoCo. The distinction allows
> outsiders to know the role of the owner of this email alias.

I guess it depends whether you think that distinction is important :-)

Gerv


0
Gervase
12/11/2013 1:12:34 AM
gokoproject@gmail.com schrieb:
> I personally like to keep @mozilla.org for MoFo and of course @mozilla.com will continue to be for MoCo. The distinction allows outsiders to know the role of the owner of this email alias.

I do not think that's a distinction that matters at all (I personally 
never liked that I did get a mozilla.com address instead of a 
mozilla.org one when I started getting paid by Mozilla, as I think it's 
important to show people we confer with that we are a non-profit .org 
and not a for-profit .com).
I'll even go as far as to say it should not matter at all if people are 
paid by the organization or not if they have enough merit in the community.

KaiRo

0
Robert
12/11/2013 9:30:19 PM
On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 4:30:19 PM UTC-5, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> gokoproject@gmail.com schrieb:
> 
> > I personally like to keep @mozilla.org for MoFo and of course @mozilla.com will continue to be for MoCo. The distinction allows outsiders to know the role of the owner of this email alias.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think that's a distinction that matters at all (I personally 
> 
> never liked that I did get a mozilla.com address instead of a 
> 
> mozilla.org one when I started getting paid by Mozilla, as I think it's 
> 
> important to show people we confer with that we are a non-profit .org 
> 
> and not a for-profit .com).
> 
> I'll even go as far as to say it should not matter at all if people are 
> 
> paid by the organization or not if they have enough merit in the community.
> 
> 
> 
> KaiRo

I think there is always a distinction. I
0
gokoproject
12/15/2013 11:02:20 AM
On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 4:30:19 PM UTC-5, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> gokoproject@gmail.com schrieb:
>=20
> > I personally like to keep @mozilla.org for MoFo and of course @mozilla.=
com will continue to be for MoCo. The distinction allows outsiders to know =
the role of the owner of this email alias.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I do not think that's a distinction that matters at all (I personally=20
>=20
> never liked that I did get a mozilla.com address instead of a=20
>=20
> mozilla.org one when I started getting paid by Mozilla, as I think it's=
=20
>=20
> important to show people we confer with that we are a non-profit .org=20
>=20
> and not a for-profit .com).
>=20
> I'll even go as far as to say it should not matter at all if people are=
=20
>=20
> paid by the organization or not if they have enough merit in the communit=
y.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> KaiRo

Sorry I hit the reply button too early.=20
True we probably have a few community members who happen to have @mozilla.c=
om email address, most likely because it was easier to manage the LDAP perm=
ission that way (not sure if we do allow non @mozilla.com to be in the LDAP=
 primary account name).

I am just a bit old school that I like telling someone's identity from an e=
mail address. In a way I probably can assume people using chromium.org are =
either core chromium developer or Google employee who prefer to be using ch=
romium outside of work. While Google is not a non-profit organization, the =
same way that Python Foundation does not really have a business entity for =
handling business contracts either. It may not be all that important. Right=
 now we redirect public facing mozilla.com to mozilla.org. Some of the inte=
rnal facing are split between mozilla.org and mozilla.com. Anyway, I don't =
want to dilute the discussion.=20

While I truly believe and value community member;s effort (being a communit=
y member right now I am), I am just a bit old school and if either won't wo=
rk I am just happy with something like @mozillians.org   :)

0
gokoproject
12/15/2013 11:21:31 AM
+1 for the same reason. I=E2=80=99m very happy with =40mozillians.org (an=
d I=E2=80=99d use it proudly when needed).

Also, Mozilla is not Debian, Apache or Python. Mozilla is a set of organi=
sations with millions of dollars revenue, a business development team and=
 offices in some of the most expensive cities in the world. So...

-Alina=C2=A0

> While I truly believe and value community member;s effort (being =20
> a community member right now I am), I am just a bit old school and =20
> if either won't work I am just happy with something like =40mozillians.=
org =20
> :)
> =20
> =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
> governance mailing list
> governance=40lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
> =20

0
Alina
12/15/2013 11:52:37 AM
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--KQHtXa4Nu0EDpMU1gFBJlUnnlQd9POFwe
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

El 15/12/13 12:21, gokoproject@gmail.com escribi=F3:
> While I truly believe and value community member;s effort (being a comm=
unity member right now I am), I am just a bit old school and if either wo=
n't work I am just happy with something like @mozillians.org   :)
The point here is there is a big consensus among the community about the
fact that we want external people to make no distinction between a
mozilla employee and a trusted mozilla volunteer, both are mozilla
community members.

That's the reason to make no distinctions when communicating and that's
the reason for a common @mozilla.org email for both.

This specific thread is about the initial phase where already identified
as trusted contributors (Mozilla Reps) get this @mozilla.org address to
later expand to a larger group.

Regards.

--=20
Rub=E9n Mart=EDn [Nukeador]
Mozilla Reps Mentor
http://www.mozilla-hispano.org
http://twitter.com/mozilla_hispano
http://facebook.com/mozillahispano



--KQHtXa4Nu0EDpMU1gFBJlUnnlQd9POFwe
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlKt1lYACgkQF+Cr28b0I+YEiACgmgcuN8TVus9/Ajifn+gGw042
k8IAmgN/ENGSobT+4Ogq5L6ghn0s+e4M
=lFcL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--KQHtXa4Nu0EDpMU1gFBJlUnnlQd9POFwe--
0
ISO
12/15/2013 4:18:30 PM
Hi,=C2=A0

=C2=A0Just for reference, I think this blog wasn=E2=80=99t mentioned:=C2=A0=
https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2005/02/24/email-addresses-mozillaorg-and=
-the-mozilla-foundation/=C2=A0
=C2=A0=C2=A0
=C2=A0In my personal opinion, I think that, right now, the structure of t=
he organisation and the situation is more complex than it was back in 200=
5. And, just think about Mozilla growing in both number of paid staff and=
 contributors in the next years=E2=80=A6

-- =20
Alina Mierlus
similis.cc =20
=40alina=5Fmierlus

Activat 15 Dec 2013 at 17:18:51, Rub=C3=A9n Mart=C3=ADn (nukeador=40mozil=
la-hispano.org) escrit:
> =20
> El 15/12/13 12:21, gokoproject=40gmail.com escribi=C3=B3:
> > While I truly believe and value community member;s effort (being =20
> a community member right now I am), I am just a bit old school and =20
> if either won't work I am just happy with something like =40mozillians.=
org =20
> :)
> The point here is there is a big consensus among the community =20
> about the
> fact that we want external people to make no distinction between =20
> a
> mozilla employee and a trusted mozilla volunteer, both are mozilla =20
> community members.
> =20
> That's the reason to make no distinctions when communicating =20
> and that's
> the reason for a common =40mozilla.org email for both.
> =20
> This specific thread is about the initial phase where already =20
> identified
> as trusted contributors (Mozilla Reps) get this =40mozilla.org =20
> address to
> later expand to a larger group.
> =20
> Regards.
> =20
> --
> Rub=C3=A9n Mart=C3=ADn =5BNukeador=5D
> Mozilla Reps Mentor
> http://www.mozilla-hispano.org
> http://twitter.com/mozilla=5Fhispano
> http://facebook.com/mozillahispano
> =20
> =20
> - signature.asc, 271 bytes =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F =20
> governance mailing list
> governance=40lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
> =20

0
Alina
12/16/2013 1:34:49 AM
Alina,
Wow, it is kind of awesome to have this stuff in the public and 
available.  I had forgotten I had written this post (thought not the 
history, which i remember well.)

mozilla.org addresses have been tricky for a while now.  We could do one 
of three things.
      1.  not use mozilla.org addresses.
      2.  give mozilla.org address to a select group of people for some
reason, either:
              (a) badge of honor; or
              (b) support their authority and legitimacy
      3.  give mozilla.org address to *lots* of people, along the lines
dasher suggested earlier in this thread.

Figuring this out is related to figuring out how what we mean by 
"Mozillian," how to support existing mozillians and develop more.

I connected with Mary, who noted her view that the first, critical steps 
are to define Mozillians and establish common understanding of the 
levels of "contribution" within this group, and to develop and 
access/privileges that are associated with these levels.

I think Mary may be away from her computer for a few days, so I can't 
provide a lot more detail, but I know she's eager to figure these things 
out.   I suspect we'll want an option for each of (2) and (3) above.

mitchell

On 12/15/13 5:34 PM, Alina Mierlus wrote:
> Hi,
>
>   Just for reference, I think this blog wasn’t mentioned: https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2005/02/24/email-addresses-mozillaorg-and-the-mozilla-foundation/
>
>   In my personal opinion, I think that, right now, the structure of the organisation and the situation is more complex than it was back in 2005. And, just think about Mozilla growing in both number of paid staff and contributors in the next years…
>
> --
> Alina Mierlus
> similis.cc
> @alina_mierlus
>
> Activat 15 Dec 2013 at 17:18:51, Rubén Martín (nukeador@mozilla-hispano.org) escrit:
>>
>> El 15/12/13 12:21, gokoproject@gmail.com escribió:
>>> While I truly believe and value community member;s effort (being
>> a community member right now I am), I am just a bit old school and
>> if either won't work I am just happy with something like @mozillians.org
>> :)
>> The point here is there is a big consensus among the community
>> about the
>> fact that we want external people to make no distinction between
>> a
>> mozilla employee and a trusted mozilla volunteer, both are mozilla
>> community members.
>>
>> That's the reason to make no distinctions when communicating
>> and that's
>> the reason for a common @mozilla.org email for both.
>>
>> This specific thread is about the initial phase where already
>> identified
>> as trusted contributors (Mozilla Reps) get this @mozilla.org
>> address to
>> later expand to a larger group.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> --
>> Rubén Martín [Nukeador]
>> Mozilla Reps Mentor
>> http://www.mozilla-hispano.org
>> http://twitter.com/mozilla_hispano
>> http://facebook.com/mozillahispano
>>
>>
>> - signature.asc, 271 bytes _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance@lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>>
>

0
Mitchell
12/17/2013 6:06:50 AM
On Monday, December 16, 2013 10:06:50 PM UTC-8, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> Alina,
> 
> Wow, it is kind of awesome to have this stuff in the public and 
> available.  I had forgotten I had written this post (thought not the 
> history, which i remember well.)

When researching the history around this, I actually used both of these as points of reference:

* https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2005/02/24/email-addresses-mozillaorg-and-the-mozilla-foundation/
* https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2005/02/07/mozillaorg-staff-and-mozilla-foundation-employees/
0
mrz
12/17/2013 2:56:47 PM
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 2:56:47 PM UTC, :mrz wrote:
> On Monday, December 16, 2013 10:06:50 PM UTC-8, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> > Alina,
> > 
> > Wow, it is kind of awesome to have this stuff in the public and 
> > available.  I had forgotten I had written this post (thought not the 
> > history, which i remember well.)
> 
> When researching the history around this, I actually used both of these as points of reference:
> 
> * https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2005/02/24/email-addresses-mozillaorg-and-the-mozilla-foundation/
> * https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2005/02/07/mozillaorg-staff-and-mozilla-foundation-employees/

hi All - Having just joined this discussion I can see there hasn't been a final resolution posted? 

I'm working with a volunteer who has been supporting my team quite a lot, and I would like to give access to a resource source (appannie) for them to be more integrated in our work. 
(NB: Mozilla has  free access to as many seats as we want but users need a @mozilla address of some sort to identify them, i.e. I can't add them as @gmail or other public available address.) 

Is there a resolution here on this question? 
Thanks! 
Rina
0
rjensen
12/8/2014 12:04:25 PM
On 08/12/14 12:04, rjensen@mozilla.com wrote:
> I'm working with a volunteer who has been supporting my team quite a
> lot, and I would like to give access to a resource source (appannie)
> for them to be more integrated in our work. (NB: Mozilla has  free
> access to as many seats as we want but users need a @mozilla address
> of some sort to identify them, i.e. I can't add them as @gmail or
> other public available address.)

That seems broken. An email address is a universal identifier. Why
should the fact that other people can get addresses at the same domain
be a problem for appannie?

Mozilla is moving to use Google infrastructure for all its email, so
it's even entirely the same back end!

If the issue is that the access control is domain-based only, then there
are various Mozilla community domains (e.g. @mozilla-community.org, and
many regional ones) which may be able to provide the volunteer with an
identifier to use.

> Is there a resolution here on this question?

No.

Gerv


0
Gervase
12/9/2014 10:22:46 AM
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 08/12/14 12:04, rjensen@mozilla.com wrote:
> > I'm working with a volunteer who has been supporting my team quite a
> > lot, and I would like to give access to a resource source (appannie)
> > for them to be more integrated in our work. (NB: Mozilla has  free
> > access to as many seats as we want but users need a @mozilla address
> > of some sort to identify them, i.e. I can't add them as @gmail or
> > other public available address.)
>
> That seems broken. An email address is a universal identifier. Why
> should the fact that other people can get addresses at the same domain
> be a problem for appannie?
>
> Mozilla is moving to use Google infrastructure for all its email, so
> it's even entirely the same back end!
>
> If the issue is that the access control is domain-based only, then there
> are various Mozilla community domains (e.g. @mozilla-community.org, and
> many regional ones) which may be able to provide the volunteer with an
> identifier to use.
>
> > Is there a resolution here on this question?
>
> No.
>

It is a shame there is not despite how much support for such was shown in
the last round of discussions.  It seems like we just got into bikeshedding
over the topic.
0
Benjamin
12/10/2014 10:19:20 PM
On 10/12/14 22:19, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> It is a shame there is not despite how much support for such was shown in
> the last round of discussions.  It seems like we just got into bikeshedding
> over the topic.

I really don't think that issues about who should get one, what the
criteria should be, whether it's for life or not, and how we make sure
we don't exclude parts of the community count as "bikeshedding"... they
seem pretty fundamental.

Gerv

0
Gervase
12/15/2014 2:01:18 PM
On 2014-12-15 9:01 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 10/12/14 22:19, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>> It is a shame there is not despite how much support for such was shown in
>> the last round of discussions.  It seems like we just got into bikeshedding
>> over the topic.
> I really don't think that issues about who should get one, what the
> criteria should be, whether it's for life or not, and how we make sure
> we don't exclude parts of the community count as "bikeshedding"... they
> seem pretty fundamental.

It's been a while, but let's see if we can settle this. [1]

I think that the case the Reps make - broadly speaking that enabling 
community leadership is a thing we want and that a mozilla.org email 
address can lend weight and legitimacy to those efforts - is compelling. 
I think a better question than "should the Reps have m.o addresses" is 
"do the Reps have an effective governance model".

As I understand it:

- We have a Reps Council, whose members are nominated & elected annually.
- There is a Reps module, owned by Pierros and peered by several others.

My understanding is that the reps council members are elected annually, 
and the generally-acquiescent module peers are in the 
benevolent-dictator seats with the module owner - Pierros - being the 
place the buck stops. If we believe that this is an effective governance 
model that results in responsible people advancing Mozilla's goals 
responsibly - and I think it is and does, respectively - I propose that:

- Reps Council be empowered to nominate people to have an appropriate 
Mozilla.org email addresses.
- With the module peers' assent those addresses be granted for the 
duration of that person's active participation in the Reps, and that
- Council and module peers be responsible for usage guidelines, 
policing, etc, with final approval resting with the module owner.

And we proceed with confident they'll do right by Mozilla with their 
newfound superpowers.


- mhoye




[1] - The town square is suddenly empty. The noonday sun beats down as 
the townsfolk shutter their windows. A tumbleweed rolls by. In the 
distance, a train whistle.
0
Mike
12/16/2014 4:34:47 PM
I think we were in agreement on Reps getting email addresses. Two parts
stalled:

1. How to actually give out the mailboxes
2. When we expand to allow non-Reps contributors to have the addresses (as
we agreed that contributors besides Reps have earned them) how do we have a
clear definition for non-Reps contributors that being a member of the Reps
program automatically provides Reps.

I don't remember which parts we agreed on, but there were some discussions
about whether or not the email address be revoked. I *believe* we agreed
that the address only be revoked in the case of abuse, ie, if you earned
it, even if you stopped being a contributor, you could keep it.

The beauty of starting out with granting email addresses to Reps, is that
we could work out the policy on abuse and if you get to keep the address
before expanding. Reps would be the pilot.

Council and module peers will not be able to police use of email addresses
in the sense of doing any sort of monitoring to watch for abuses. They
would be able though to respond to complaints. I don't believe Council
should be solely responsible for setting policy around this either. I
assume there are usage guidelines for employees? Perhaps Council could be
consulted to see if any changes in that policy would be needed to make the
email use suitable for volunteers.

Remember that council is only 9 people, 7 of whom are volunteers and all
are already doing plenty to manage the Reps program.

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Mike Hoye <mhoye@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> On 2014-12-15 9:01 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/14 22:19, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>>
>>> It is a shame there is not despite how much support for such was shown in
>>> the last round of discussions.  It seems like we just got into
>>> bikeshedding
>>> over the topic.
>>>
>> I really don't think that issues about who should get one, what the
>> criteria should be, whether it's for life or not, and how we make sure
>> we don't exclude parts of the community count as "bikeshedding"... they
>> seem pretty fundamental.
>>
>
> It's been a while, but let's see if we can settle this. [1]
>
> I think that the case the Reps make - broadly speaking that enabling
> community leadership is a thing we want and that a mozilla.org email
> address can lend weight and legitimacy to those efforts - is compelling. I
> think a better question than "should the Reps have m.o addresses" is "do
> the Reps have an effective governance model".
>
> As I understand it:
>
> - We have a Reps Council, whose members are nominated & elected annually.
> - There is a Reps module, owned by Pierros and peered by several others.
>
> My understanding is that the reps council members are elected annually,
> and the generally-acquiescent module peers are in the benevolent-dictator
> seats with the module owner - Pierros - being the place the buck stops. If
> we believe that this is an effective governance model that results in
> responsible people advancing Mozilla's goals responsibly - and I think it
> is and does, respectively - I propose that:
>
> - Reps Council be empowered to nominate people to have an appropriate
> Mozilla.org email addresses.
> - With the module peers' assent those addresses be granted for the
> duration of that person's active participation in the Reps, and that
> - Council and module peers be responsible for usage guidelines, policing,
> etc, with final approval resting with the module owner.
>
> And we proceed with confident they'll do right by Mozilla with their
> newfound superpowers.
>
>
> - mhoye
>
>
>
>
> [1] - The town square is suddenly empty. The noonday sun beats down as the
> townsfolk shutter their windows. A tumbleweed rolls by. In the distance, a
> train whistle.
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
0
Majken
12/17/2014 12:39:23 AM
On 16/12/14 16:34, Mike Hoye wrote:
> I think that the case the Reps make - broadly speaking that enabling
> community leadership is a thing we want and that a mozilla.org email
> address can lend weight and legitimacy to those efforts - is compelling.
> I think a better question than "should the Reps have m.o addresses" is
> "do the Reps have an effective governance model".

I think they do; that's not a question for me. In one sense, Reps is the
easy part.

> - Reps Council be empowered to nominate people to have an appropriate
> Mozilla.org email addresses.

Does that scale? (I think Majken basically asked this question too.)

> - With the module peers' assent those addresses be granted for the
> duration of that person's active participation in the Reps, and that

An ephemeral email address is far less useful. I'm sure people step down
from being reps for reasons other than no longer being involved with
Mozilla. If we have the ability to remove in case of abuse,

> - Council and module peers be responsible for usage guidelines,
> policing, etc, with final approval resting with the module owner.

Thing is, this makes it seem like @mozilla.org email addresses will
remain a reps-only thing. Is that what you are saying? How do we expand
past reps? Not every core volunteer Mozillian can be or wants to be a rep.

Gerv
0
Gervase
12/17/2014 10:58:22 AM
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Majken Connor <majken@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think we were in agreement on Reps getting email addresses. Two parts
> stalled:
>
> 1. How to actually give out the mailboxes
> 2. When we expand to allow non-Reps contributors to have the addresses (as
> we agreed that contributors besides Reps have earned them) how do we have a
> clear definition for non-Reps contributors that being a member of the Reps
> program automatically provides Reps.
>

So I think the second issue could be something that could be decided later
and brought back to MozGov or even defined through normal ReMo Governance
later. I think getting to the point that Reps can get an address through a
process alone is a great step forward.

The first issue is simple because once we have consensus that were going to
move forward with this the request is really as simple as ReMo Governance
having a process and then once someone is approved a bug can be filed with
the appropriate component and IT can create an aliases.

I think looking back at the discussions there was overwhelmingly more
support for then against but the issue seems to be that because this is not
an asset controlled by ReMo that a decision maker like Mitchell or someone
further up the Mozilla ecosystem needs to sign off on this "Hey look we
have a consensus and so yes were going to do this" and give a blessing
officially here in the discussion.


>
> I don't remember which parts we agreed on, but there were some discussions
> about whether or not the email address be revoked. I *believe* we agreed
> that the address only be revoked in the case of abuse, ie, if you earned
> it, even if you stopped being a contributor, you could keep it.
>
> The beauty of starting out with granting email addresses to Reps, is that
> we could work out the policy on abuse and if you get to keep the address
> before expanding. Reps would be the pilot.
>
>
+1


>
> Council and module peers will not be able to police use of email addresses
> in the sense of doing any sort of monitoring to watch for abuses. They
> would be able though to respond to complaints. I don't believe Council
> should be solely responsible for setting policy around this either. I
> assume there are usage guidelines for employees? Perhaps Council could be
> consulted to see if any changes in that policy would be needed to make the
> email use suitable for volunteers.
>


> Remember that council is only 9 people, 7 of whom are volunteers and all
> are already doing plenty to manage the Reps program.
>
>
0
Benjamin
12/17/2014 12:15:38 PM
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 16/12/14 16:34, Mike Hoye wrote:
> > I think that the case the Reps make - broadly speaking that enabling
> > community leadership is a thing we want and that a mozilla.org email
> > address can lend weight and legitimacy to those efforts - is compelling.
> > I think a better question than "should the Reps have m.o addresses" is
> > "do the Reps have an effective governance model".
>
> I think they do; that's not a question for me. In one sense, Reps is the
> easy part.
>
> > - Reps Council be empowered to nominate people to have an appropriate
> > Mozilla.org email addresses.
>
> Does that scale? (I think Majken basically asked this question too.)
>
>
I think it does are requests going to be handled overnight? No but will the
council scale to handling them I think so. I think also there could be a
feedback process from mentors making it easier for requests to be handled.


>
> > - With the module peers' assent those addresses be granted for the
> > duration of that person's active participation in the Reps, and that
>
> An ephemeral email address is far less useful. I'm sure people step down
> from being reps for reasons other than no longer being involved with
> Mozilla. If we have the ability to remove in case of abuse,
>
> I agree but I would say this gets the foot in the door and after the pilot
is done and as policy is expanded to other contributors the expiration
based on rep participation could be removed.



>
> > - Council and module peers be responsible for usage guidelines,
> > policing, etc, with final approval resting with the module owner.
>
> Thing is, this makes it seem like @mozilla.org email addresses will
> remain a reps-only thing. Is that what you are saying? How do we expand
> past reps? Not every core volunteer Mozillian can be or wants to be a rep.
>

I think that would be negative as I am already concerned that we tie some
many resources to reps that contributors in other areas of the project
cannot access. So it is an equity of resources issue.

If we move forward I would suggest having the pilot have an end date by
which point council could propose a broader framework.
0
Benjamin
12/17/2014 12:20:45 PM
-1 on the idea of using Reps as a pilot program.

If we decide that giving @mozilla.org addresses to some volunteers is 
the right thing to do, we need to be able to manage requests from non 
reps as well.
Otherwise we will create yet another tension between volunteers, and we 
don't need any more of that.

Putting my volunteer's hat on, I'm not convinced that giving a 
@mozilla.org address to volunteers is the right thing to do, but I have 
the feeling that the boat for that discussion has already shipped.

Francesco
0
Francesco
12/17/2014 12:28:22 PM
My tl;dr comment is that if this is clearly marketed as a "pilot" then I
fully, 100% support it, though I will echo the concern that this overloads
the Reps Council - in the long run it might make sense for another group of
people to be delegated this authority.


On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Benjamin Kerensa <bkerensa@mozillausa.org>
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Majken Connor <majken@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think we were in agreement on Reps getting email addresses. Two parts
> > stalled:
> >
> > 1. How to actually give out the mailboxes
> > 2. When we expand to allow non-Reps contributors to have the addresses
> (as
> > we agreed that contributors besides Reps have earned them) how do we
> have a
> > clear definition for non-Reps contributors that being a member of the
> Reps
> > program automatically provides Reps.
> >
>
> So I think the second issue could be something that could be decided later
> and brought back to MozGov or even defined through normal ReMo Governance
> later. I think getting to the point that Reps can get an address through a
> process alone is a great step forward.
>
> The first issue is simple because once we have consensus that were going to
> move forward with this the request is really as simple as ReMo Governance
> having a process and then once someone is approved a bug can be filed with
> the appropriate component and IT can create an aliases.
>
> I think looking back at the discussions there was overwhelmingly more
> support for then against but the issue seems to be that because this is not
> an asset controlled by ReMo that a decision maker like Mitchell or someone
> further up the Mozilla ecosystem needs to sign off on this "Hey look we
> have a consensus and so yes were going to do this" and give a blessing
> officially here in the discussion.
>
>
> >
> > I don't remember which parts we agreed on, but there were some
> discussions
> > about whether or not the email address be revoked. I *believe* we agreed
> > that the address only be revoked in the case of abuse, ie, if you earned
> > it, even if you stopped being a contributor, you could keep it.
> >
> > The beauty of starting out with granting email addresses to Reps, is that
> > we could work out the policy on abuse and if you get to keep the address
> > before expanding. Reps would be the pilot.
> >
> >
> +1
>
>
> >
> > Council and module peers will not be able to police use of email
> addresses
> > in the sense of doing any sort of monitoring to watch for abuses. They
> > would be able though to respond to complaints. I don't believe Council
> > should be solely responsible for setting policy around this either. I
> > assume there are usage guidelines for employees? Perhaps Council could be
> > consulted to see if any changes in that policy would be needed to make
> the
> > email use suitable for volunteers.
> >
>
>
> > Remember that council is only 9 people, 7 of whom are volunteers and all
> > are already doing plenty to manage the Reps program.
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
0
Larissa
12/17/2014 1:12:32 PM
I suppose this proposal is no go too? I think the issue is despite how much
support there is to move this forward by staff we need someone higher level
to support the proposal.

On Dec 17, 2014 5:12 AM, "Larissa Shapiro" <lshapiro@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> My tl;dr comment is that if this is clearly marketed as a "pilot" then I
fully, 100% support it, though I will echo the concern that this overloads
the Reps Council - in the long run it might make sense for another group of
people to be delegated this authority.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Benjamin Kerensa <bkerensa@mozillausa.org>
wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Majken Connor <majken@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I think we were in agreement on Reps getting email addresses. Two parts
>> > stalled:
>> >
>> > 1. How to actually give out the mailboxes
>> > 2. When we expand to allow non-Reps contributors to have the addresses
(as
>> > we agreed that contributors besides Reps have earned them) how do we
have a
>> > clear definition for non-Reps contributors that being a member of the
Reps
>> > program automatically provides Reps.
>> >
>>
>> So I think the second issue could be something that could be decided
later
>> and brought back to MozGov or even defined through normal ReMo Governance
>> later. I think getting to the point that Reps can get an address through
a
>> process alone is a great step forward.
>>
>> The first issue is simple because once we have consensus that were going
to
>> move forward with this the request is really as simple as ReMo Governance
>> having a process and then once someone is approved a bug can be filed
with
>> the appropriate component and IT can create an aliases.
>>
>> I think looking back at the discussions there was overwhelmingly more
>> support for then against but the issue seems to be that because this is
not
>> an asset controlled by ReMo that a decision maker like Mitchell or
someone
>> further up the Mozilla ecosystem needs to sign off on this "Hey look we
>> have a consensus and so yes were going to do this" and give a blessing
>> officially here in the discussion.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I don't remember which parts we agreed on, but there were some
discussions
>> > about whether or not the email address be revoked. I *believe* we
agreed
>> > that the address only be revoked in the case of abuse, ie, if you
earned
>> > it, even if you stopped being a contributor, you could keep it.
>> >
>> > The beauty of starting out with granting email addresses to Reps, is
that
>> > we could work out the policy on abuse and if you get to keep the
address
>> > before expanding. Reps would be the pilot.
>> >
>> >
>> +1
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Council and module peers will not be able to police use of email
addresses
>> > in the sense of doing any sort of monitoring to watch for abuses. They
>> > would be able though to respond to complaints. I don't believe Council
>> > should be solely responsible for setting policy around this either. I
>> > assume there are usage guidelines for employees? Perhaps Council could
be
>> > consulted to see if any changes in that policy would be needed to make
the
>> > email use suitable for volunteers.
>> >
>>
>>
>> > Remember that council is only 9 people, 7 of whom are volunteers and
all
>> > are already doing plenty to manage the Reps program.
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance@lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
0
Benjamin
1/14/2015 3:04:30 AM
Could we not set them up on a Google account as I know we have a great
relationship with them is it seems
On 14 Jan 2015 03:04, "Benjamin Kerensa" <bkerensa@mozillausa.org> wrote:

> I suppose this proposal is no go too? I think the issue is despite how much
> support there is to move this forward by staff we need someone higher level
> to support the proposal.
>
> On Dec 17, 2014 5:12 AM, "Larissa Shapiro" <lshapiro@mozilla.com> wrote:
> >
> > My tl;dr comment is that if this is clearly marketed as a "pilot" then I
> fully, 100% support it, though I will echo the concern that this overloads
> the Reps Council - in the long run it might make sense for another group of
> people to be delegated this authority.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Benjamin Kerensa <
> bkerensa@mozillausa.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Majken Connor <majken@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think we were in agreement on Reps getting email addresses. Two
> parts
> >> > stalled:
> >> >
> >> > 1. How to actually give out the mailboxes
> >> > 2. When we expand to allow non-Reps contributors to have the addresses
> (as
> >> > we agreed that contributors besides Reps have earned them) how do we
> have a
> >> > clear definition for non-Reps contributors that being a member of the
> Reps
> >> > program automatically provides Reps.
> >> >
> >>
> >> So I think the second issue could be something that could be decided
> later
> >> and brought back to MozGov or even defined through normal ReMo
> Governance
> >> later. I think getting to the point that Reps can get an address through
> a
> >> process alone is a great step forward.
> >>
> >> The first issue is simple because once we have consensus that were going
> to
> >> move forward with this the request is really as simple as ReMo
> Governance
> >> having a process and then once someone is approved a bug can be filed
> with
> >> the appropriate component and IT can create an aliases.
> >>
> >> I think looking back at the discussions there was overwhelmingly more
> >> support for then against but the issue seems to be that because this is
> not
> >> an asset controlled by ReMo that a decision maker like Mitchell or
> someone
> >> further up the Mozilla ecosystem needs to sign off on this "Hey look we
> >> have a consensus and so yes were going to do this" and give a blessing
> >> officially here in the discussion.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I don't remember which parts we agreed on, but there were some
> discussions
> >> > about whether or not the email address be revoked. I *believe* we
> agreed
> >> > that the address only be revoked in the case of abuse, ie, if you
> earned
> >> > it, even if you stopped being a contributor, you could keep it.
> >> >
> >> > The beauty of starting out with granting email addresses to Reps, is
> that
> >> > we could work out the policy on abuse and if you get to keep the
> address
> >> > before expanding. Reps would be the pilot.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Council and module peers will not be able to police use of email
> addresses
> >> > in the sense of doing any sort of monitoring to watch for abuses. They
> >> > would be able though to respond to complaints. I don't believe Council
> >> > should be solely responsible for setting policy around this either. I
> >> > assume there are usage guidelines for employees? Perhaps Council could
> be
> >> > consulted to see if any changes in that policy would be needed to make
> the
> >> > email use suitable for volunteers.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > Remember that council is only 9 people, 7 of whom are volunteers and
> all
> >> > are already doing plenty to manage the Reps program.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> governance mailing list
> >> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
0
David
1/14/2015 8:08:48 AM
On 2015-01-13 10:04 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>
> I suppose this proposal is no go too? I think the issue is despite how 
> much support there is to move this forward by staff we need someone 
> higher level to support the proposal.
>
I don't think that the Reps module leadership has laid out their 
position or made a clear request here.

- mhoye
0
Mike
1/14/2015 2:53:46 PM
I'll note that, historically, we haven't created a new @mozilla.org address
since 2005 or so.  Mitchell had very strong feelings on the subject at the
time, and we simply dropped the practice.  I don't think we can or should
move forward without her approval.

On a personal level, I'd be okay with something like @reps.mozilla.org if
we want to confer some form of official status on Reps, but the historical
weight of @mozilla.org addresses seems like something we should grant with
appropriate care and caution.

-- Mike

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Mike Hoye <mhoye@mozilla.com> wrote:

> On 2015-01-13 10:04 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>
>>
>> I suppose this proposal is no go too? I think the issue is despite how
>> much support there is to move this forward by staff we need someone higher
>> level to support the proposal.
>>
>>  I don't think that the Reps module leadership has laid out their
> position or made a clear request here.
>
> - mhoye
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
0
Mike
1/14/2015 4:03:46 PM
The reps council took a position last year on the previous proposal I don't
think it would make sense for them to take a position on a new proposal
until Mitchell approves this as Mike Connor points out this is probably the
blocker. One thing Mitchell said last year was she wanted to see Mozillian
defined first IIRC.


On Jan 14, 2015 6:54 AM, "Mike Hoye" <mhoye@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> On 2015-01-13 10:04 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>>
>>
>> I suppose this proposal is no go too? I think the issue is despite how
much support there is to move this forward by staff we need someone higher
level to support the proposal.
>>
> I don't think that the Reps module leadership has laid out their position
or made a clear request here.
>
> - mhoye
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
0
Benjamin
1/14/2015 9:26:18 PM
On 10/29/2013 11:54 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Friday 2013-10-25 19:05 +0300, Nikos Roussos wrote:
>> Although I agree in principle with the "why only employees and reps?"
>> argument I think we should consider this as a try out phase. See how
>> that goes and how we can expand this to all active contributors.
>> Hopefully by that time we'll have a way to reliable determine if a
>> person is an active contributor.
>
> I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea of starting with only
> employees and reps; I'd like to be able to include non-employee
> contributors in areas other than the areas covered by the reps
> program (regional events and marketing, as I understand it), and I'm
> concerned that temporary things tend to become permanent.

I'm with dbaron on this one. I'd actually seed the group with
module owners, not with employees. I don't know enough about
Reps to comment on them.

~fantasai
0
fantasai
1/21/2015 11:39:51 PM
On 01/14/2015 11:03 AM, Mike Connor wrote:
> I'll note that, historically, we haven't created a new @mozilla.org address
> since 2005 or so.  Mitchell had very strong feelings on the subject at the
> time, and we simply dropped the practice.  I don't think we can or should
> move forward without her approval.
>
> On a personal level, I'd be okay with something like @reps.mozilla.org if
> we want to confer some form of official status on Reps, but the historical
> weight of @mozilla.org addresses seems like something we should grant with
> appropriate care and caution.

It seems to me that mozillians.org solves the problem of "give a badge
freely to everyone interested to wear it".

If the problem we're trying to solve is Reps needing a formal email
address, then @reps.mozilla.org seems like it would solve that very
neatly without getting tangled in other things. It also seems like
being a Rep is something that's binary: you either are or you're not,
so it would be easy to administer.

Having read the whole thread, it seems both problems that wanted to
be solved are easily solved as above, and anding out @mozilla.org
addresses is a very complex solution in search of a problem. We
can safely defer discussing it until someone finds that problem.

~fantasai
0
fantasai
1/22/2015 12:21:49 AM
No, the idea is to figure out email addresses for communities and use Reps
as the pilot group to figure out how to do this since Reps have already
been vetted.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:21 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
wrote:

> On 01/14/2015 11:03 AM, Mike Connor wrote:
>
>> I'll note that, historically, we haven't created a new @mozilla.org
>> address
>> since 2005 or so.  Mitchell had very strong feelings on the subject at the
>> time, and we simply dropped the practice.  I don't think we can or should
>> move forward without her approval.
>>
>> On a personal level, I'd be okay with something like @reps.mozilla.org if
>> we want to confer some form of official status on Reps, but the historical
>> weight of @mozilla.org addresses seems like something we should grant
>> with
>> appropriate care and caution.
>>
>
> It seems to me that mozillians.org solves the problem of "give a badge
> freely to everyone interested to wear it".
>
> If the problem we're trying to solve is Reps needing a formal email
> address, then @reps.mozilla.org seems like it would solve that very
> neatly without getting tangled in other things. It also seems like
> being a Rep is something that's binary: you either are or you're not,
> so it would be easy to administer.
>
> Having read the whole thread, it seems both problems that wanted to
> be solved are easily solved as above, and anding out @mozilla.org
> addresses is a very complex solution in search of a problem. We
> can safely defer discussing it until someone finds that problem.
>
> ~fantasai
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
0
Majken
1/22/2015 12:56:10 AM
Sorry, for community members, not communities!

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Majken Connor <majken@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, the idea is to figure out email addresses for communities and use Reps
> as the pilot group to figure out how to do this since Reps have already
> been vetted.
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:21 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 01/14/2015 11:03 AM, Mike Connor wrote:
>>
>>> I'll note that, historically, we haven't created a new @mozilla.org
>>> address
>>> since 2005 or so.  Mitchell had very strong feelings on the subject at
>>> the
>>> time, and we simply dropped the practice.  I don't think we can or should
>>> move forward without her approval.
>>>
>>> On a personal level, I'd be okay with something like @reps.mozilla.org
>>> if
>>> we want to confer some form of official status on Reps, but the
>>> historical
>>> weight of @mozilla.org addresses seems like something we should grant
>>> with
>>> appropriate care and caution.
>>>
>>
>> It seems to me that mozillians.org solves the problem of "give a badge
>> freely to everyone interested to wear it".
>>
>> If the problem we're trying to solve is Reps needing a formal email
>> address, then @reps.mozilla.org seems like it would solve that very
>> neatly without getting tangled in other things. It also seems like
>> being a Rep is something that's binary: you either are or you're not,
>> so it would be easy to administer.
>>
>> Having read the whole thread, it seems both problems that wanted to
>> be solved are easily solved as above, and anding out @mozilla.org
>> addresses is a very complex solution in search of a problem. We
>> can safely defer discussing it until someone finds that problem.
>>
>> ~fantasai
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance@lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>>
>
>
0
Majken
1/22/2015 12:56:28 AM
On 01/21/2015 07:56 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
> No, the idea is to figure out email addresses for communities and use Reps
> as the pilot group to figure out how to do this since Reps have already
> been vetted.

Okay. What problem is this solving? That wasn't clear from the thread.

(Fwiw, I'm 100% in agreement with Axel and dbaron's comments on the proposal.)

~fantasai
0
fantasai
1/22/2015 4:42:20 AM
On 01/21/2015 07:56 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
> No, the idea is to figure out email addresses for communities and use Reps
> as the pilot group to figure out how to do this since Reps have already
> been vetted.

Okay. What problem is this solving? That wasn't clear from the thread.

(Fwiw, I'm 100% in agreement with Axel and dbaron's comments on the proposal.)

~fantasai
0
fantasai
1/22/2015 4:42:20 AM
There are a few:
1) Contributors currently lack a project wide authentic address that they
can use when engaging externally (events, conferences or event downstream
open source projects)
2) Staff when they leave MoCo lose their @mozilla.com addresses so by
offering @mozilla.org to both paid and unpaid contributors this would fix
that gap.
3) We are probably the only open source project of our size that does not
give out project email addresses to add authenticity/project identity to
our communications

Also technically some paid contributors have received @mozilla.org email
addresses even in recent history and further back but the policy on who has
them and keeps them is inconsistent. As an example Brendan still has and
uses his but there are former staff who had one and arbitrarily were
stripped of theirs immediately after they left MoCo.

Where are Axel and Dbaron's thoughts? I do not see them in this thread
although there has been a few of these discussions just in the last three
years.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:42 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
wrote:

> On 01/21/2015 07:56 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
>
>> No, the idea is to figure out email addresses for communities and use Reps
>> as the pilot group to figure out how to do this since Reps have already
>> been vetted.
>>
>
> Okay. What problem is this solving? That wasn't clear from the thread.
>
> (Fwiw, I'm 100% in agreement with Axel and dbaron's comments on the
> proposal.)
>
>
> ~fantasai
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
0
Benjamin
1/22/2015 7:15:13 AM
On 01/22/2015 02:15 AM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> There are a few:  [...]

Wouldn't a @mozillians.org email alias available to every Registered Mozillian
be able to solve these three problems? Employees, Reps, and other types of
contributors could all register for one.

What problem do you have that is not solved by @mozillians.org?

~fantasai


===== recap of Axel and dbaron's earlier comments =====

> Where are Axel and Dbaron's thoughts? I do not see them in this thread
> although there has been a few of these discussions just in the last three
> years.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.governance/UsgIRmdv9Kk/q9Mqa1FLs-EJ

Azel Hecht wrote:
> I like the idea of revisiting what a @mozilla.org email address means today,
> and I think that outstanding longtime leadership is probably best matching
> what it is today, and what it could mean if we handed out new ones.
>
> I'd not waive that requirements for paid contributors, though. I'd also
> wouldn't restrict it to reps for non-paid contributors.
>
> Technically, I'd ask for a revocation policy to be included. And we'd
> probably need at least best-practices on what usernames to use. The current
> list is very much nick-names, is that good? Do we need to care?

Axel makes several points here that I think are worth paying attention to:

   1. Suggests that @mozilla.org email address means "outstanding longtime leadership",
      (which matches fairly well to its historic usage and distinguishes itself from
      @mozillians.org).

   2. Employees do not automatically get one: must fulfill same criteria as volunteers.

   3. Candidates not restricted to employees+Reps: open to all contributors.


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.governance/UsgIRmdv9Kk/m32MUG5f6McJ

David Baron wrote:
> I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea of starting with only
> employees and reps; I'd like to be able to include non-employee
> contributors in areas other than the areas covered by the reps
> program (regional events and marketing, as I understand it), and I'm
> concerned that temporary things tend to become permanent.

dbaron makes a couple points here:

   1. Including employees and reps but not other contributors is Not Okay.

   2. "Temporary things tend to become permanent"

      Corollary: we cannot restrict the recipients of @mozilla.org address
      later, so whatever policy we decide on now needs to be a subset of
      whatever policy we will want to have 10 or 50 years from now.

      In slightly different terms: you can't pilot with all Reps or all
      employees if one idea under consideration is assigning it to a
      subset of that category.

~fantasai
0
fantasai
1/22/2015 7:11:48 PM
We talked about this for over a year and there were clearly a lot of good
reasons to help people who have been active contributors but aren't (or are
no longer) employed by Mozilla identify with the project. I won't always be
employed by Mozilla, but it would be meaningful to me to have a long-term
Mozilla "identity" when I move on professionally. The issues related to
cost and authenticity seem surmountable. Can we really not find a way to
work this out?
0
Gareth
9/28/2015 3:55:00 PM
To be totally honest it seems disappointing that were still blocked on
this. One issue I do see is we haven't defined a Mozillian well and new
hires are vouched as Mozillians instantly and new volunteers can be vouched
easily.

Vouched Mozillians status has kind of been watered down if you compare it
to other open source projects membership or vouching models. See Ubuntu
Membership, Debian Developer, Gnome Membership, LibreOffice Membership.

Across the open source ecosystem you have to have sustained contributions
for months generally or years to earn a status. In Mozilla its handed out
nearly instantly and this is not good for a number of reasons.

We need leadership support here though we need Mitchell, Chris, Mark and IT
Leadership to support this.

This is the biggest blocker and if we can get their support I'm sure
Participation Team, WPR and IT can figure out a policy and process.

On Sep 28, 2015 8:55 AM, "Gareth Aye" <gareth.aye@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We talked about this for over a year and there were clearly a lot of good
reasons to help people who have been active contributors but aren't (or are
no longer) employed by Mozilla identify with the project. I won't always be
employed by Mozilla, but it would be meaningful to me to have a long-term
Mozilla "identity" when I move on professionally. The issues related to
cost and authenticity seem surmountable. Can we really not find a way to
work this out?
0
Benjamin
9/28/2015 4:50:59 PM
Hey Benjamin,

I was pretty active in this discussion LAST YEAR and I pretty much gave up
in championing the mozilla.org email address on the understanding that it's
recognition Mozilla is not willing to give any time soon.

Here's what I wrote almost one year ago:

"I'm also getting the impression that from Mozilla's perspective,
mozilla.org email addresses have such a premium that just giving it to Core
Contributors would wreck the current economics of rewards and recognition. "


On Monday, 28 September 2015, Benjamin Kerensa <bkerensa@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bkerensa@gmail.com');>> wrote:

> To be totally honest it seems disappointing that were still blocked on
> this. One issue I do see is we haven't defined a Mozillian well and new
> hires are vouched as Mozillians instantly and new volunteers can be vouched
> easily.
>
> Vouched Mozillians status has kind of been watered down if you compare it
> to other open source projects membership or vouching models. See Ubuntu
> Membership, Debian Developer, Gnome Membership, LibreOffice Membership.
>
> Across the open source ecosystem you have to have sustained contributions
> for months generally or years to earn a status. In Mozilla its handed out
> nearly instantly and this is not good for a number of reasons.
>
> We need leadership support here though we need Mitchell, Chris, Mark and IT
> Leadership to support this.
>
> This is the biggest blocker and if we can get their support I'm sure
> Participation Team, WPR and IT can figure out a policy and process.
>
> On Sep 28, 2015 8:55 AM, "Gareth Aye" <gareth.aye@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > We talked about this for over a year and there were clearly a lot of good
> reasons to help people who have been active contributors but aren't (or are
> no longer) employed by Mozilla identify with the project. I won't always be
> employed by Mozilla, but it would be meaningful to me to have a long-term
> Mozilla "identity" when I move on professionally. The issues related to
> cost and authenticity seem surmountable. Can we really not find a way to
> work this out?
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>


-- 
*Regnard Raquedan, MBA, MSc.*
http://weboplex.com
@regnard <https://twitter.com/regnard>
0
Regnard
9/28/2015 5:43:07 PM
Mozilla decided to move to gApps for their mail after we had this
discussion. That should remove some blockers on the technical side. Also
there is a new participation team that is doing more work on defining and
recognizing contributors, which was a blocker on the process side. It seems
like we're at least in a much better place to actually see movement on this
now than we were a year ago.

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Regnard Raquedan <regnard@raquedan.com>
wrote:

> Hey Benjamin,
>
> I was pretty active in this discussion LAST YEAR and I pretty much gave up
> in championing the mozilla.org email address on the understanding that
> it's recognition Mozilla is not willing to give any time soon.
>
> Here's what I wrote almost one year ago:
>
> "I'm also getting the impression that from Mozilla's perspective,
> mozilla.org email addresses have such a premium that just giving it to
> Core Contributors would wreck the current economics of rewards and
> recognition. "
>
>
> On Monday, 28 September 2015, Benjamin Kerensa <bkerensa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To be totally honest it seems disappointing that were still blocked on
>> this. One issue I do see is we haven't defined a Mozillian well and new
>> hires are vouched as Mozillians instantly and new volunteers can be
>> vouched
>> easily.
>>
>> Vouched Mozillians status has kind of been watered down if you compare it
>> to other open source projects membership or vouching models. See Ubuntu
>> Membership, Debian Developer, Gnome Membership, LibreOffice Membership.
>>
>> Across the open source ecosystem you have to have sustained contributions
>> for months generally or years to earn a status. In Mozilla its handed out
>> nearly instantly and this is not good for a number of reasons.
>>
>> We need leadership support here though we need Mitchell, Chris, Mark and
>> IT
>> Leadership to support this.
>>
>> This is the biggest blocker and if we can get their support I'm sure
>> Participation Team, WPR and IT can figure out a policy and process.
>>
>> On Sep 28, 2015 8:55 AM, "Gareth Aye" <gareth.aye@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > We talked about this for over a year and there were clearly a lot of
>> good
>> reasons to help people who have been active contributors but aren't (or
>> are
>> no longer) employed by Mozilla identify with the project. I won't always
>> be
>> employed by Mozilla, but it would be meaningful to me to have a long-term
>> Mozilla "identity" when I move on professionally. The issues related to
>> cost and authenticity seem surmountable. Can we really not find a way to
>> work this out?
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance@lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>>
>
>
> --
> *Regnard Raquedan, MBA, MSc.*
> http://weboplex.com
> @regnard <https://twitter.com/regnard>
>
>
0
Majken
9/28/2015 5:47:55 PM
Very good point about the technical barriers.

But what about the non-technical ones, which was the really holding it up?
What has changed on our side (the community) to merit the reversal of
Mozilla's stance?

I don't want to sound defeatist, but I didn't think there was any change in
recent talk on the list on this matter.


On Monday, 28 September 2015, Majken Connor <majken@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mozilla decided to move to gApps for their mail after we had this
> discussion. That should remove some blockers on the technical side. Also
> there is a new participation team that is doing more work on defining and
> recognizing contributors, which was a blocker on the process side. It seems
> like we're at least in a much better place to actually see movement on this
> now than we were a year ago.
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Regnard Raquedan <regnard@raquedan.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','regnard@raquedan.com');>> wrote:
>
>> Hey Benjamin,
>>
>> I was pretty active in this discussion LAST YEAR and I pretty much gave
>> up in championing the mozilla.org email address on the understanding
>> that it's recognition Mozilla is not willing to give any time soon.
>>
>> Here's what I wrote almost one year ago:
>>
>> "I'm also getting the impression that from Mozilla's perspective,
>> mozilla.org email addresses have such a premium that just giving it to
>> Core Contributors would wreck the current economics of rewards and
>> recognition. "
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 28 September 2015, Benjamin Kerensa <bkerensa@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To be totally honest it seems disappointing that were still blocked on
>>> this. One issue I do see is we haven't defined a Mozillian well and new
>>> hires are vouched as Mozillians instantly and new volunteers can be
>>> vouched
>>> easily.
>>>
>>> Vouched Mozillians status has kind of been watered down if you compare it
>>> to other open source projects membership or vouching models. See Ubuntu
>>> Membership, Debian Developer, Gnome Membership, LibreOffice Membership.
>>>
>>> Across the open source ecosystem you have to have sustained contributions
>>> for months generally or years to earn a status. In Mozilla its handed out
>>> nearly instantly and this is not good for a number of reasons.
>>>
>>> We need leadership support here though we need Mitchell, Chris, Mark and
>>> IT
>>> Leadership to support this.
>>>
>>> This is the biggest blocker and if we can get their support I'm sure
>>> Participation Team, WPR and IT can figure out a policy and process.
>>>
>>> On Sep 28, 2015 8:55 AM, "Gareth Aye" <gareth.aye@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > We talked about this for over a year and there were clearly a lot of
>>> good
>>> reasons to help people who have been active contributors but aren't (or
>>> are
>>> no longer) employed by Mozilla identify with the project. I won't always
>>> be
>>> employed by Mozilla, but it would be meaningful to me to have a long-term
>>> Mozilla "identity" when I move on professionally. The issues related to
>>> cost and authenticity seem surmountable. Can we really not find a way to
>>> work this out?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> governance mailing list
>>> governance@lists.mozilla.org
>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Regnard Raquedan, MBA, MSc.*
>> http://weboplex.com
>> @regnard <https://twitter.com/regnard>
>>
>>
>

-- 
*Regnard Raquedan, MBA, MSc.*
http://weboplex.com
@regnard <https://twitter.com/regnard>
0
Regnard
9/28/2015 5:58:25 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Insert Email Address as a Link When Composing and Email Address
I see how to insert links to url's when I composw emails in Mozilla 1.6. I can't figure out how to insert an email address which will allow the recipient the option of composing a message to the inserted address without copying and pasting. Is it possible? Thanks, John John Baum wrote: >I see how to insert links to url's when I composw emails in Mozilla 1.6. I can't figure out how to insert an email address which will allow the recipient the option of composing a message to the inserted address without copying and pasting. Is it possible? > > I thoug...

Non existing email address cancels sending to other email addresses
Hello ppl.. My WebApp sends emails to a series of email addresses without any problem... the problem is that when i send a email to a series of email addresses which contains a non existing email account... the email doesn't go at all.. Do you know what's the problem and what can be the resolution? Thanks in advance Bracoute How are you running the email process? Is it running in multiple threads so that more than 1 is sending at a time? If not, this should take care of that. Perhaps checking the email addresses for validation before allowing them to be entered into the databas...

EMail address removed from address book remains when I send EMail to a list
I don't understand why I can't remove an EMail address from a mailing list. An address I removed from a mailing list remains when I send EMail to a list. Consequently unwanted mail is sent and I receive bounce messages in return - - since it is no longer valid. What is required to remove an entry from a mailing list and rely that it won't be included as if I had not removed it? -- Regards, TOM BLACKWELL TOM BLACKWELL wrote: > > I don't understand why I can't remove an EMail address from a mailing list. > > An ad...

Changing email address
I have read this: A.8.1. How do I change my user name (email address) in Bugzilla? New in 2.16 - go to the Account section of the Preferences. You will be emailed at both addresses for confirmation. ref: http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/2.20/html/faq.html#faq-use-changeaddress To anyone who has done this, do ALL bug entries with old email address get changed to new email address in the cc-list field when you change account email details? To put it another way cc-list displays email addresses but internally is it actually a pointer to my account identity that is shown? ...

new data type: email address. validating email addresses at the database
Recently we had a problem where a bunch of email communications were not sent by our application because one email address, in the group, was not a valid email address. We develop in PB. The email message and email addresses are sent in batch to a black box which handles the details. In this instance, the message did not go out to any recepients because one email address was not valid. I was wondering if we might need a new email address data type? We would then not be able to save invalid email addresses to the database. Also, until we see the email address data type, an...

Email pointer to forward all email to another email address
Microsoft Exchange calls it a Email pointer when you want to automatically re-route emails from one email address to another email address (maintaining all received/sent from/to contact information). How is this done in GroupWise? WITHOUT using a RULE that does not maintain received from information. Wendy, It appears that in the past few days you have not received a response to your posting. That concerns us, and has triggered this automated reply. Has your problem been resolved? If not, you might try one of the following options: - Do a search of our knowledgebas...

email address with internet address
I am setting up a GW system. Currently we email users using username@domain.com and I would like to keep the same naming convention on GW. I installed GWIA and entered the domain name that it is hosting for. I did a test email using GWIA:username@domain.com and I said on the GWIA NLM module it said received and processed but no message is delivered to the GW mail users. However, if I use the standard gw email name, mail is sent & received immediately. Any help is highly appreciated. Che Reexplain in more clear detail please. -- Michael J. Bell No...

Email address not showing in emails
I'm having a weird issue w/ GW 6.5.2 (client and server). If someone sends an email to me (or anyone) and CC's another person in on the email, I as the main recipient cannot see the CC'd person's email address. All I see if Bob Smith, I don't actually see bsmith@hisemailaddress. So I can't add that person my my address book because I don't actually see his email address. If I right click his name and 'add to frequent contacts' I still can't see his email address. Is this by design or am I missing something? Thanks for the help Ryan. ...

wish: display just names without email address if email is already captured in address book
The Mail program on mac os x has the nice feature that it displays only the name and not the full email address if this email is already in the address book. I find this to be a very nice feature. I sometimes add the same email address multiple times into my address book in mozilla. Just a suggestion. Tools | Options | Advanced | General Settings Show only display name for people in my address book Malcolm wrote: > Tools | Options | Advanced | General Settings > > Show only display name for people in my address book That only works for the To: address; the From:...

Removing email addresses from email
Is it possible to remove selected email addresses from a new email just before sending it? Netscape 7 email has this feature, and Netscape 8 doesn't offer email at all. Since both Thunderbird and Netscape are Mozilla based I was hoping Thunderbird has this feature, but I can't find help on the subject. Thanks, Dom Star date 6/27/2007 10:11 PM by teletype, Thunderbird leader Dom Parisi called the control tower to announce : > Is it possible to remove selected email addresses from a new email just > before sending it? Netscape 7 email has this feature, and Netsc...

Instigating emails via SMTP alters the email address to
We have an application which uses mapi32.dll to send emails via SMTP. I didn't write the software but am supporting it so please forgive me for my ignorance about how it all works behind the scenes. When using Outlook, our app sends the emails directly to the mail server, ie. Outlook does not come into play. When using Groupwise, it detects a new mail message and opens up a compose message window. This was fine with Groupwise 6 but now with Groupwise 7 it is prefixing "SMTP:" to the email address. This causes problems at the mail server as it can't recognise the e...

When I email beginners at perl.org I get a bug sent to my address
--part1_11e.210d2da4.2be040c8_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is just a little disturbing. I emailed beginners at perl.org yesterday and a buggy email was sent to my address. I just emailed another question and got the same buggy email again. Can someone out there do something about this? --part1_11e.210d2da4.2be040c8_boundary-- Was it the daniel@aekyung.co.kr address?=20 I'm getting that one, mentioned earlier today about every ten minutes.=20 Daniel please check your mail server, mail.aekyung.c...

using SMTP localhost in the webconfig is it possibale to hide our outgoing email address and change it so that a message appears to have been sent from our members email address rather then what is in
Hi there Can any one help me. I am asking this question for our .net guy who is a little busy at the moment. We have a website which has two online forms which get sent direct but to us using localhost which work fine. We also allow members to create and send their profiles to companies to apply for jobs. The members profile is sent via the webconfig file (code below). <mailSettings> <smtp from="support@ourdomain.co.uk"> <network host="localhost"/> </smtp> </mailSettings>At the top of every profile...

More than to email addresses in an address book card
Name: Nessie Email: nepeevaatgmaildotcom Product: Thunderbird Summary: More than to email addresses in an address book card Comments: Hi, I use both Firefox and Thunderbird, and the only problem so far for me is that I have lots of friends with more than 2 email addresses. May be there is a way I don't know to add more emails , but I don't know it. If not, I thing it will be very useful to provide lines for more additional addresses so one doesn't need to open 3 cards for a person with 5 emails. I am sure it will be beneficial for other people as well. Thanks fo...

Send email to each email address in database
Hi, I'm trying to write a web form which allows my client to put their raw html into a textbox and then click send and it will send the email to each individual email address in the database. I want it to send the emails individually not compile a long list of emails in BCC field so i know I'm going to need a foreach loop. Just not sure where to go from here: email.aspx Message<asp:TextBox ID="BodyTextBox" runat="server" TextMode="MultiLine" /><br /> <asp:Button ID="EmailButton" runat="server" Text="Send emai...

Web resources about - @mozilla.org email addresses for Mozilla Reps - mozilla.governance

Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ireland is one of the few countries in the world, and the only EU country, that does not have a Postal code system. As of 2012, the Irish Government ...

How To: (Possibly) Restore Your Contacts After The Switch To Facebook.com Email Addresses
Still having issues with lost contacts following Facebook’s recent controversial move to make Facebook.com email addresses the default emails ...

Facebook Users Can Now Opt Into Letting Friends Export Their Email Addresses via Download Your Information ...
Previously, Facebook's Download Your Information tool let users export an archive of their status updates, photos, as well as a list of friends' ...

IPCC Chair Addresses Summit on Climate Change - Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), addresses the opening plenary session of the Summit on Climate ...

YouTube - Joss Whedon Addresses 181st (2013) Wesleyan University Commencement
Veröffentlicht am 27.05.2013 Wesleyan Class of 1987 alumnus Joss Weadon receives an honorary doctorate and the privilege of delivering the commencement ...

'We will not let them win': Malcolm Turnbull addresses Parliament after Paris attacks
Australia's diversity is one of its greatest strengths and Australians must &quot;protect and defend it dearly&quot; in the aftermath of terrorist ...

Skype for iOS updated with data detectors for phone numbers, addresses, and more
Skype updated its iOS client today with support for several different data detectors in text chats. Now whenever someone sends you a phone number, ...

Microsoft’s new Windows 10 privacy policy addresses some of our biggest concerns
Although the furor has subsided in the months since the launch of Windows 10 , PC owners still have plenty of valid concerns about how Microsoft ...

Liveblogging the American Revolution: December 3, 1777: The Continental Congress Addresses the Six Nations ...
**American Memory Timeline**: [Continental Congress Addresses to the Six Nations](http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentatio ...

Texas man addresses "loved ones" before being executed
Raphael Holiday, who set fire that killed three children, becomes 13th person to be put to death this year in Texas

Resources last updated: 12/4/2015 1:05:24 PM