Scope of "Mozilla" and Planet Mozilla

This week has seen heated discussion about the scope of materials 
syndicated to Planet Mozilla.   Here's my view.

Mozilla is a community unified around the Mozilla mission and manifesto. 
  We agree on these things, but we are extremely diverse on almost every 
other topic.  In fact, Mozilla is remarkable in how many people with 
otherwise differing views we gather around our mission.

How do we handle this?

First, we should be very clear that being a "Mozillian" is about 
supporting the Mozilla mission.  If we start to try to make "Mozilla" 
mean "those people who share not only the Mozilla mission but also my 
general political / social / religious / environmental view" we will 
fail.   If we focus Mozilla on our shared consensus regarding the 
Mozilla mission and manifesto then the opportunities before us are 
enormous.

Mozilla's diversity is a success condition.  Our mission and our goal is 
truly global.  Our mission taps into a shared desire for respect and 
control and user sovereignty that runs across cultures and across many 
other worldviews.    We may even offend each other in some of our other 
views.   Despite this, we share a commitment to the Mozilla mission. 
This is a remarkable achievement and important to our continued success.

What does this mean for how we handle planet.mozilla.org?

We could say that Planet Mozilla focuses on our mission and related 
work.    This view means getting to know the full personality of 
Mozillians will take more work and happen in other areas for those who 
want to do so.

We could say that Planet Mozilla reflects the general worldview of 
Mozillians, including areas outside of the Mozilla consensus.    This 
view expresses a larger slice of each Mozillian's life, but means we'll 
spend more time reacting to areas where we disagree or even offend each 
other.

I believe the former is the best path.   It's a path based on the 
promise of the web, of inclusion, and of user sovereignty.  It's the 
path of the Mozilla Manifesto, and its adoption by people of all sorts 
of different views.    It allows us to focus on issues, such as SOPA and 
ACTA, that are directly related to our mission.   It allows Mozillians 
to have divergent views on other topics without tearing ourselves apart 
and damaging our ability to fulfill our unique mission.

In the past we've chosen the latter for planet.mozilla.org.  I believe 
we need a core information flow and gathering space that is focused on 
what we all came to Mozilla for -- how to move our particular mission 
forward.

Proposals have been made to change planet,  or to start a similar 
planet.mozillians.org.  I'm personally learning towards the idea of 
remaking planet to be the gathering place for updates about Mozilla 
activities.  I'll talk with the planet module owners and peers, as well 
as monitor the discussion forums.  I'm not sure of the particular 
solution yet, but in my mind I'm clear that we need a forum focused on 
the thing we all agree on -- Mozilla and our mission.

Mitchell
0
Mitchell
3/9/2012 12:30:59 AM
mozilla.governance 764 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

87 Replies
713 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 52

On Mar 8, 4:30=A0pm, Mitchell Baker <mitch...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Proposals have been made to change planet, =A0or to start a similar
> planet.mozillians.org. =A0I'm personally learning towards the idea of
> remaking planet to be the gathering place for updates about Mozilla
> activities.

In my opinion, the name "mozillians" is too close to Mozilla and
implies endorsement by Mozilla. We as Mozilla contributors may
understand that such a forum would represent the sum of the
individuals involved in it -- not the Mozilla community -- but the
rest of the world doesn't necessarily appreciate such fine
distinctions. I think that Mozilla's reputation is too important to
give a single individual the power to damage it the way that has
happened over the past couple of days.

I'm sure there are creative people in the project who are good at
thinking up interesting names, and could choose a name that does not
sound like "Mozilla".

More broadly, I must say I'm disappointed that this post does not
acknowledge that what happened was an attack on a marginalized group
by a member of a privileged group, in which Mozilla resources were
used to tell a subset of Mozilla contributors that we are unwelcome.
It is more than a mere "difference of opinion". It is a false
equivalence to say that expressing bigoted views and being called out
on the bigoted nature of those views is just as terrible an experience
as being told in your own workplace that legislation should be passed
to make you a second-class citizen. Pragmatically, though, I think
that making planet.mozilla.org focused on Mozilla-related content is
the right answer, and sets clear expectations for everyone.

Cheers,
Tim

0
Tim
3/9/2012 12:37:15 AM
I agree entirely that we don't want to try and have everyone conform
to the same thinking, however I think that we should look at this
slightly differently.

The first problem seems to be that people don't want so much noise on
Planet, however I find that problem is fairly unique to *our* planet
and not to others such as Planet GNOME.  Planet has problems of
readability due to its theme, the poor formatting of the automated
meeting notes, etc. Planet GNOME seems pretty easy to read and easy to
skip over things that I'm not interested in and seems to have a
similar # of updates to our Planet.  I believe there is huge value in
being able to see the whole of the community and things that aren't
just "Project X did Y today" updates.  A better theme and removal of
some of the automated note posts (or making them more readable) seems
like it would address a large number of the problems people have
today. That said, enough people have said they want a filtered feed of
"project specific" updates that I don't see why we wouldn't also
provide that.

The second problem is that people don't like people posting about a
narrow set of certain very controversial topics.  I don't have a
problem with people posting interesting things they're doing that
aren't necessarily related to Mozilla (how do you want to define
Mozilla? The projects, the people...?). I enjoy knowing what is going
on with people and the other things they might be doing (side
projects, photography, travel). Really, I'm pretty OK with people
posting just about anything they want to their blogs. However, people
need to realize they are responsible for what they write and say. They
need to understand certain things they say can and will destroy
relationships and their own credibility. Things you say can hurt the
community and divide people in completely unproductive ways. People
should self-censor. If your beliefs and your need to express them to
such a wide audience outweigh the consequences, then I don't think we
should stand in the way.

stuart


On Mar 8, 4:30=A0pm, Mitchell Baker <mitch...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> This week has seen heated discussion about the scope of materials
> syndicated to Planet Mozilla. =A0 Here's my view.
>
> Mozilla is a community unified around the Mozilla mission and manifesto.
> =A0 We agree on these things, but we are extremely diverse on almost ever=
y
> other topic. =A0In fact, Mozilla is remarkable in how many people with
> otherwise differing views we gather around our mission.
>
> How do we handle this?
>
> First, we should be very clear that being a "Mozillian" is about
> supporting the Mozilla mission. =A0If we start to try to make "Mozilla"
> mean "those people who share not only the Mozilla mission but also my
> general political / social / religious / environmental view" we will
> fail. =A0 If we focus Mozilla on our shared consensus regarding the
> Mozilla mission and manifesto then the opportunities before us are
> enormous.
>
> Mozilla's diversity is a success condition. =A0Our mission and our goal i=
s
> truly global. =A0Our mission taps into a shared desire for respect and
> control and user sovereignty that runs across cultures and across many
> other worldviews. =A0 =A0We may even offend each other in some of our oth=
er
> views. =A0 Despite this, we share a commitment to the Mozilla mission.
> This is a remarkable achievement and important to our continued success.
>
> What does this mean for how we handle planet.mozilla.org?
>
> We could say that Planet Mozilla focuses on our mission and related
> work. =A0 =A0This view means getting to know the full personality of
> Mozillians will take more work and happen in other areas for those who
> want to do so.
>
> We could say that Planet Mozilla reflects the general worldview of
> Mozillians, including areas outside of the Mozilla consensus. =A0 =A0This
> view expresses a larger slice of each Mozillian's life, but means we'll
> spend more time reacting to areas where we disagree or even offend each
> other.
>
> I believe the former is the best path. =A0 It's a path based on the
> promise of the web, of inclusion, and of user sovereignty. =A0It's the
> path of the Mozilla Manifesto, and its adoption by people of all sorts
> of different views. =A0 =A0It allows us to focus on issues, such as SOPA =
and
> ACTA, that are directly related to our mission. =A0 It allows Mozillians
> to have divergent views on other topics without tearing ourselves apart
> and damaging our ability to fulfill our unique mission.
>
> In the past we've chosen the latter for planet.mozilla.org. =A0I believe
> we need a core information flow and gathering space that is focused on
> what we all came to Mozilla for -- how to move our particular mission
> forward.
>
> Proposals have been made to change planet, =A0or to start a similar
> planet.mozillians.org. =A0I'm personally learning towards the idea of
> remaking planet to be the gathering place for updates about Mozilla
> activities. =A0I'll talk with the planet module owners and peers, as well
> as monitor the discussion forums. =A0I'm not sure of the particular
> solution yet, but in my mind I'm clear that we need a forum focused on
> the thing we all agree on -- Mozilla and our mission.
>
> Mitchell

0
Stuart
3/9/2012 12:42:05 AM
Hi Mitchell,

I agree that the Mozilla Mission should be the anchor to what planet is.

OTH, I don't think that it should be the *consensus* around the Mozilla 
Mission that constitutes planet.

As an example I'd take your key note at MozCamp in Berlin, which was 
challenging that very consensus, and opening up the mission to places 
that are uncomfortable and new.

That belongs on planet, and any community member should feel free to 
challenge our perception of the mission and where we can apply it.

Axel
0
Axel
3/9/2012 1:25:22 AM
I conducted my own little poll about what sorts of arguably off-topic
content I, personally, should continue syndicating to Planet:
http://www.owlfolio.org/administrivia/what-goes-on-planet-mozilla-a-survey/

Responses are roughly evenly split into two groups: people who actively
like "reading posts which tell [them] about the people of Mozilla" (i.e.
content which is not directly related to Mozilla or The Web) and people
who feel there is way too much off-topic chatter and they want a more
focused feed.

I think one feed cannot serve both purposes, and we should have at least
two: one roughly equivalent to what we have now (perhaps minus the
meeting notes, which IMHO should get their own dedicated feed) and one
which is specifically focused on content relevant to the project.  I
think we can rely on everyone involved to tag things appropriately.

HOWEVER, I think we should also institute a ban on broadly-construed
political advocacy that is not directly relevant to Mozilla's mission,
on BOTH feeds.  So, concretely, anti-ACTA advocacy would be acceptable, 
but anti-nuclear-energy activism would not -- both examples 
intentionally not things I can recall seeing go by on Planet.

I think this because I agree with Mitchell's statement

> we should be very clear that being a "Mozillian" is about supporting
> the Mozilla mission.  If we start to try to make "Mozilla" mean
> "those people who share not only the Mozilla mission but also my
> general political / social / religious / environmental view" we will
> fail.

and I think it is necessary to our collective ability to do that, that
we collectively do not rub each others' noses in our non-mission-related
political/social/etc views.

I would like to think that we can all be trusted to not rules-lawyer a 
policy stated in nonspecific terms, and that actual enforcement of this 
ban will not be required (but if it ever does come up, I would support 
sanctions up to and including permanent removal from Planet, depending 
on how egregious the violation is and how often it is repeated).

zw
0
Zack
3/9/2012 2:02:53 AM
On 3/8/12 5:25 PM, Axel Hecht wrote:
> Hi Mitchell,
>
> I agree that the Mozilla Mission should be the anchor to what planet is.
>
> OTH, I don't think that it should be the *consensus* around the Mozilla
> Mission that constitutes planet.
>
> As an example I'd take your key note at MozCamp in Berlin, which was
> challenging that very consensus, and opening up the mission to places
> that are uncomfortable and new.
>
> That belongs on planet, and any community member should feel free to
> challenge our perception of the mission and where we can apply it.
>
> Axel

Axel

Yes, i agree.  I was trying to use "consensus" to mean the thing that we 
agree is Mozilla -- the mission, etc.  Perhaps it is too tricky a word. 
  I do think we have an expression of our mission -- open, 
participatory, individaul-focused, choice, innovation, opportunity in 
online life.  that's big but there are a lot of thing it doesn't cove. 
so probably we're talking about how we fulfill the mozilla mission, but 
that's getting further than we need for this discussion.

mitchell
0
Mitchell
3/9/2012 2:17:32 AM
I am the original Planet Mozilla Module Owner and currently support the 
Module as a Peer. These are my thoughts alone; I expect other Planet 
leaders will share here when they finish their day jobs. (The Module 
Owner and other two Peers are project volunteers.) That being said, I am 
confident that these views are in mostly line with those of the rest of 
the team and well represent the mission and purpose of the Planet 
Mozilla Module.

I think it's very important that people in this discussion get the 
opportunity to understand what the Planet Module has been trying to 
accomplish for the last half a decade before we all dive into "how to 
change it" discussion.

Mozilla is a large and growing community of people spread out all over 
the world. We don't all share offices and a neighborhood pub. We don't 
all have the opportunity for hallway conversations and grabbing a beer 
after work. As a widely distributed group, we face challenges getting to 
know each other, being able to build the camaraderie and trust that 
direct social interaction facilitates for traditional (not open-source) 
companies.

A big part of the Mission of the Planet Module is to aid in that 
challenge, to facilitate communication among a community of human beings 
-- people who share more than just a work product.

Mozilla is more than just some lines of code. It's more than a few 
websites. Mozilla is all about *people*.  Our Mission and Manifesto are 
about *people*. Our work is in support of *people*.

We create change in the world by organizing *people* and our forums for 
discussion and interaction, from IRC to Planet, all carve out space for 
*people* to relate to each other as human beings -- rather than simply a 
bunch of automatons in a factory cranking out products Foxconn style.

And we are not alone in this. Many of the most successful open source 
projects have set up Planets for this very same purpose. They realized 
as we have, that a healthy open source community is about people more 
than it is about code or products or anything else. Take a look at the 
excellent Gnome Planet for what this looks like when it works. It's 
inviting, and inspiring.

I realize that the recent events at Planet have caused many people a 
great deal of strife and wasted time. I empathize with those who feel 
wounded by some of the content that's made it into the Planet feed.

Some have said that we're just too big, that our community is of a size 
that requires giving up the rich and empowering diversity that we share 
across our various communications channels.

Others have said that they're simply not interested in the non-work 
lives of our global community. They are only interested in reading about 
what code others are writing or status updates on projects Mozilla is 
sponsoring.

I appreciate all of those views and concerns, and I would like Planet to 
address them. I believe that the Planet Module should address them. I 
have confidence that we can address them.

But I reject the idea that our community has somehow outgrown its 
ability to share as a group of human beings. I reject the idea that 
Planet requires an editorial regime to filter and censor or that 
participation in Planet should demand self-filtering and self-censoring 
of content. I reject the idea that our primary communications must be 
limited to only the technical and work related.

The Planet team has been working to make Planet more usable. We have 
pulled the robot-powered status updates and the project blogs into their 
own feed. http://planet.mozilla.org/projects/  We are also beginning 
work to create a sub-feed at Planet that will be exclusive to content 
about our mission and related work.

Planet has served us well over the 5 years since the formation of the 
Planet Module and it will continue to serve our amazing community going 
forward. To do that it will grow and evolve. But Planet should not 
devolve into sterile reports of only the lowest common denominator content.

Mozilla is more than just �a job� and I hope that Planet will continue 
to make that more obvious, not less.

- Asa
0
Asa
3/9/2012 2:33:30 AM
On 3/8/2012 6:30 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> We could say that Planet Mozilla focuses on our mission and related 
> work.    This view means getting to know the full personality of 
> Mozillians will take more work and happen in other areas for those who 
> want to do so.
>
> We could say that Planet Mozilla reflects the general worldview of 
> Mozillians, including areas outside of the Mozilla consensus.    This 
> view expresses a larger slice of each Mozillian's life, but means 
> we'll spend more time reacting to areas where we disagree or even 
> offend each other.
>
> I believe the former is the best path.   It's a path based on the 
> promise of the web, of inclusion, and of user sovereignty.  It's the 
> path of the Mozilla Manifesto, and its adoption by people of all sorts 
> of different views.    It allows us to focus on issues, such as SOPA 
> and ACTA, that are directly related to our mission.   It allows 
> Mozillians to have divergent views on other topics without tearing 
> ourselves apart and damaging our ability to fulfill our unique mission.
>
> In the past we've chosen the latter for planet.mozilla.org.  I believe 
> we need a core information flow and gathering space that is focused on 
> what we all came to Mozilla for -- how to move our particular mission 
> forward.
>
> Proposals have been made to change planet,  or to start a similar 
> planet.mozillians.org.  I'm personally learning towards the idea of 
> remaking planet to be the gathering place for updates about Mozilla 
> activities.  I'll talk with the planet module owners and peers, as 
> well as monitor the discussion forums.  I'm not sure of the particular 
> solution yet, but in my mind I'm clear that we need a forum focused on 
> the thing we all agree on -- Mozilla and our mission.


I will admit that in my 4.5 years of interaction with the Mozilla 
community, I have (to my recollection) never subscribed to 
planet.mozilla.org. The primary reason for this is that, if I find 
someone's posts interesting, I want to read everything they say, not 
only that which gets syndicated on planet.mozilla.org. Since my RSS 
reader is incapable of detecting duplicate posts arising from 
aggregation, and I already get a large fraction of planet.mozilla.org 
posts anyways, subscribing to planet.mozilla.org never made a lot of 
sense to me.

One idea I would like to propose would be to offer a feed for all those 
posts written by the community that *do not* get syndicated to 
planet.mozilla.org. I think it is valuable to be able to see the full 
contents of all the blogs of people who are part of the Mozilla 
community without having to do a lot of work to exclude the posts that 
would otherwise be seen.
0
Joshua
3/9/2012 2:36:57 AM
On Thursday, 8 March 2012 16:30:59 UTC-8, Mitchell Baker  wrote:
> This week has seen heated discussion about the scope of materials=20
> syndicated to Planet Mozilla.   Here's my view.
>=20
> Mozilla is a community unified around the Mozilla mission and manifesto.=
=20
>   We agree on these things, but we are extremely diverse on almost every=
=20
> other topic.  In fact, Mozilla is remarkable in how many people with=20
> otherwise differing views we gather around our mission.
>=20
> How do we handle this?
>=20
> First, we should be very clear that being a "Mozillian" is about=20
> supporting the Mozilla mission.  If we start to try to make "Mozilla"=20
> mean "those people who share not only the Mozilla mission but also my=20
> general political / social / religious / environmental view" we will=20
> fail.   If we focus Mozilla on our shared consensus regarding the=20
> Mozilla mission and manifesto then the opportunities before us are=20
> enormous.
>=20
> Mozilla's diversity is a success condition.  Our mission and our goal is=
=20
> truly global.  Our mission taps into a shared desire for respect and=20
> control and user sovereignty that runs across cultures and across many=20
> other worldviews.    We may even offend each other in some of our other=
=20
> views.   Despite this, we share a commitment to the Mozilla mission.=20
> This is a remarkable achievement and important to our continued success.
>=20
> What does this mean for how we handle planet.mozilla.org?
>=20
> We could say that Planet Mozilla focuses on our mission and related=20
> work.    This view means getting to know the full personality of=20
> Mozillians will take more work and happen in other areas for those who=20
> want to do so.
>=20
> We could say that Planet Mozilla reflects the general worldview of=20
> Mozillians, including areas outside of the Mozilla consensus.    This=20
> view expresses a larger slice of each Mozillian's life, but means we'll=
=20
> spend more time reacting to areas where we disagree or even offend each=
=20
> other.
>=20
> I believe the former is the best path.   It's a path based on the=20
> promise of the web, of inclusion, and of user sovereignty.  It's the=20
> path of the Mozilla Manifesto, and its adoption by people of all sorts=20
> of different views.    It allows us to focus on issues, such as SOPA and=
=20
> ACTA, that are directly related to our mission.   It allows Mozillians=20
> to have divergent views on other topics without tearing ourselves apart=
=20
> and damaging our ability to fulfill our unique mission.
>=20
> In the past we've chosen the latter for planet.mozilla.org.  I believe=20
> we need a core information flow and gathering space that is focused on=20
> what we all came to Mozilla for -- how to move our particular mission=20
> forward.
>=20
> Proposals have been made to change planet,  or to start a similar=20
> planet.mozillians.org.  I'm personally learning towards the idea of=20
> remaking planet to be the gathering place for updates about Mozilla=20
> activities.  I'll talk with the planet module owners and peers, as well=
=20
> as monitor the discussion forums.  I'm not sure of the particular=20
> solution yet, but in my mind I'm clear that we need a forum focused on=20
> the thing we all agree on -- Mozilla and our mission.
>=20
> Mitchell

Let me start by saying that I agree nearly 100% with everything that is bei=
ng echoed in this thread.=20

I personally use Planet as aggregator of all the things which contribute to=
 Mozilla's mission (ideas, projects, discussions, etc) from both paid and v=
olunteer contributors. That said, I understand that this may not be the ori=
ginal intent of Planet.=20

I also understand that we are a far more diverse community now than when Pl=
anet was originally designed. One thing to consider is that our community a=
s it exists today includes a much larger outside audience than it did befor=
e (press, friends, family, etc). A person without prior understanding of wh=
at "Mozilla" means could have a wildly different reaction to a personal/con=
troversial post than an "outsider".

I'm not sure what the best solution is, what other communities have done to=
 solve this problem, or even if this is a problem that needs solving.

I'm just happy to be part of such a coalesced yet so diverse community; and=
 that we can have these kinds of discussions without fracture.
0
anthony
3/9/2012 4:21:10 AM
On Thursday, 8 March 2012 16:30:59 UTC-8, Mitchell Baker  wrote:
> This week has seen heated discussion about the scope of materials=20
> syndicated to Planet Mozilla.   Here's my view.
>=20
> Mozilla is a community unified around the Mozilla mission and manifesto.=
=20
>   We agree on these things, but we are extremely diverse on almost every=
=20
> other topic.  In fact, Mozilla is remarkable in how many people with=20
> otherwise differing views we gather around our mission.
>=20
> How do we handle this?
>=20
> First, we should be very clear that being a "Mozillian" is about=20
> supporting the Mozilla mission.  If we start to try to make "Mozilla"=20
> mean "those people who share not only the Mozilla mission but also my=20
> general political / social / religious / environmental view" we will=20
> fail.   If we focus Mozilla on our shared consensus regarding the=20
> Mozilla mission and manifesto then the opportunities before us are=20
> enormous.
>=20
> Mozilla's diversity is a success condition.  Our mission and our goal is=
=20
> truly global.  Our mission taps into a shared desire for respect and=20
> control and user sovereignty that runs across cultures and across many=20
> other worldviews.    We may even offend each other in some of our other=
=20
> views.   Despite this, we share a commitment to the Mozilla mission.=20
> This is a remarkable achievement and important to our continued success.
>=20
> What does this mean for how we handle planet.mozilla.org?
>=20
> We could say that Planet Mozilla focuses on our mission and related=20
> work.    This view means getting to know the full personality of=20
> Mozillians will take more work and happen in other areas for those who=20
> want to do so.
>=20
> We could say that Planet Mozilla reflects the general worldview of=20
> Mozillians, including areas outside of the Mozilla consensus.    This=20
> view expresses a larger slice of each Mozillian's life, but means we'll=
=20
> spend more time reacting to areas where we disagree or even offend each=
=20
> other.
>=20
> I believe the former is the best path.   It's a path based on the=20
> promise of the web, of inclusion, and of user sovereignty.  It's the=20
> path of the Mozilla Manifesto, and its adoption by people of all sorts=20
> of different views.    It allows us to focus on issues, such as SOPA and=
=20
> ACTA, that are directly related to our mission.   It allows Mozillians=20
> to have divergent views on other topics without tearing ourselves apart=
=20
> and damaging our ability to fulfill our unique mission.
>=20
> In the past we've chosen the latter for planet.mozilla.org.  I believe=20
> we need a core information flow and gathering space that is focused on=20
> what we all came to Mozilla for -- how to move our particular mission=20
> forward.
>=20
> Proposals have been made to change planet,  or to start a similar=20
> planet.mozillians.org.  I'm personally learning towards the idea of=20
> remaking planet to be the gathering place for updates about Mozilla=20
> activities.  I'll talk with the planet module owners and peers, as well=
=20
> as monitor the discussion forums.  I'm not sure of the particular=20
> solution yet, but in my mind I'm clear that we need a forum focused on=20
> the thing we all agree on -- Mozilla and our mission.
>=20
> Mitchell

Let me start by saying that I agree nearly 100% with everything that is bei=
ng echoed in this thread.=20

I personally use Planet as aggregator of all the things which contribute to=
 Mozilla's mission (ideas, projects, discussions, etc) from both paid and v=
olunteer contributors. That said, I understand that this may not be the ori=
ginal intent of Planet.=20

I also understand that we are a far more diverse community now than when Pl=
anet was originally designed. One thing to consider is that our community a=
s it exists today includes a much larger outside audience than it did befor=
e (press, friends, family, etc). A person without prior understanding of wh=
at "Mozilla" means could have a wildly different reaction to a personal/con=
troversial post than an "outsider".

I'm not sure what the best solution is, what other communities have done to=
 solve this problem, or even if this is a problem that needs solving.

I'm just happy to be part of such a coalesced yet so diverse community; and=
 that we can have these kinds of discussions without fracture.
0
anthony
3/9/2012 4:21:10 AM
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 4:37:15 PM UTC-8, Tim Chevalier wrote:
> Pragmatically, though, I think
> that making planet.mozilla.org focused on Mozilla-related content is
> the right answer, and sets clear expectations for everyone.

That's a common viewpoint, it seems.  It's not quite clear to me what it me=
ans.

Imagine that today we all agree that Planet should be for Mozilla-related c=
ontent only.  What happens if I violate that?  How is the rule enforced?

What happens if I post something horrible but Mozilla-related, e.g. if I sa=
y something discriminatory about several Mozilla contributors.  I won't hav=
e violated the new rule, but damage will be done, just as it was done earli=
er this week.

If our goal is to prevent this week's actions happening again, it seems to =
me that the policy should not be "no non-Mozilla content on Planet" but rat=
her "no horrible (discriminatory, etc) content on Planet".  And without som=
e kind of pre-moderation of posts (which seems impractical) it's always pos=
sible that someone will violate that policy.  So there need to be clear rul=
es on how violations are dealt with -- who decides whether a post represent=
s a violation, and what the follow-up action is.

Nick
0
n
3/9/2012 5:58:56 AM
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 4:37:15 PM UTC-8, Tim Chevalier wrote:
> Pragmatically, though, I think
> that making planet.mozilla.org focused on Mozilla-related content is
> the right answer, and sets clear expectations for everyone.

That's a common viewpoint, it seems.  It's not quite clear to me what it me=
ans.

Imagine that today we all agree that Planet should be for Mozilla-related c=
ontent only.  What happens if I violate that?  How is the rule enforced?

What happens if I post something horrible but Mozilla-related, e.g. if I sa=
y something discriminatory about several Mozilla contributors.  I won't hav=
e violated the new rule, but damage will be done, just as it was done earli=
er this week.

If our goal is to prevent this week's actions happening again, it seems to =
me that the policy should not be "no non-Mozilla content on Planet" but rat=
her "no horrible (discriminatory, etc) content on Planet".  And without som=
e kind of pre-moderation of posts (which seems impractical) it's always pos=
sible that someone will violate that policy.  So there need to be clear rul=
es on how violations are dealt with -- who decides whether a post represent=
s a violation, and what the follow-up action is.

Nick
0
n
3/9/2012 5:58:56 AM
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:58 AM, <n.nethercote@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, March 8, 2012 4:37:15 PM UTC-8, Tim Chevalier wrote:
> > Pragmatically, though, I think
> > that making planet.mozilla.org focused on Mozilla-related content is
> > the right answer, and sets clear expectations for everyone.
>
> That's a common viewpoint, it seems.  It's not quite clear to me what it
> means.
>
> Imagine that today we all agree that Planet should be for Mozilla-related
> content only.  What happens if I violate that?  How is the rule enforced?
>
> What happens if I post something horrible but Mozilla-related, e.g. if I
> say something discriminatory about several Mozilla contributors.  I won't
> have violated the new rule, but damage will be done, just as it was done
> earlier this week.
>
> If our goal is to prevent this week's actions happening again, it seems to
> me that the policy should not be "no non-Mozilla content on Planet" but
> rather "no horrible (discriminatory, etc) content on Planet".  And without
> some kind of pre-moderation of posts (which seems impractical) it's always
> possible that someone will violate that policy.  So there need to be clear
> rules on how violations are dealt with -- who decides whether a post
> represents a violation, and what the follow-up action is.
>
> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>

If it's about the contributors and not their work then I think it's very
easy to define that as personal and not mozilla related. The problem here
is that if there is a policy people can be politely told that they violated
it and then have the content pulled. Mistakes happen, people get upset, I
don't think anyone has been intentionally malicious. In this case, gerv's
post didn't violate the current policy so rather than being able to just
take it down and remind him of the policy there has to be a huge
discussion. If someone does something overt to upset or offend another
member of the community then it is also very easy to pull their feed.
0
Majken
3/9/2012 6:03:54 AM
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Majken Connor <majken@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:58 AM, <n.nethercote@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, March 8, 2012 4:37:15 PM UTC-8, Tim Chevalier wrote:
>> > Pragmatically, though, I think
>> > that making planet.mozilla.org focused on Mozilla-related content is
>> > the right answer, and sets clear expectations for everyone.
>>
>> That's a common viewpoint, it seems.  It's not quite clear to me what it
>> means.
>>
>> Imagine that today we all agree that Planet should be for Mozilla-related
>> content only.  What happens if I violate that?  How is the rule enforced?
>>
>> What happens if I post something horrible but Mozilla-related, e.g. if I
>> say something discriminatory about several Mozilla contributors.  I won't
>> have violated the new rule, but damage will be done, just as it was done
>> earlier this week.
>>
>> If our goal is to prevent this week's actions happening again, it seems
>> to me that the policy should not be "no non-Mozilla content on Planet" but
>> rather "no horrible (discriminatory, etc) content on Planet".  And without
>> some kind of pre-moderation of posts (which seems impractical) it's always
>> possible that someone will violate that policy.  So there need to be clear
>> rules on how violations are dealt with -- who decides whether a post
>> represents a violation, and what the follow-up action is.
>>
>> Nick
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance@lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>>
>
> If it's about the contributors and not their work then I think it's very
> easy to define that as personal and not mozilla related. The problem here
> is that if there is a policy people can be politely told that they violated
> it and then have the content pulled. Mistakes happen, people get upset, I
> don't think anyone has been intentionally malicious. In this case, gerv's
> post didn't violate the current policy so rather than being able to just
> take it down and remind him of the policy there has to be a huge
> discussion. If someone does something overt to upset or offend another
> member of the community then it is also very easy to pull their feed.
>

Which is to say you raise some valid points that I agree with!!

think I'd better give up for the night, my reading comprehension is slowing
down.
0
Majken
3/9/2012 6:06:26 AM
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 4:30:59 PM UTC-8, Mitchell Baker wrote:

> I believe the former is the best path.   It's a path based on the=20
> promise of the web, of inclusion, and of user sovereignty.  It's the=20
> path of the Mozilla Manifesto, and its adoption by people of all sorts=20
> of different views.    It allows us to focus on issues, such as SOPA and=
=20
> ACTA, that are directly related to our mission.   It allows Mozillians=20
> to have divergent views on other topics without tearing ourselves apart=
=20
> and damaging our ability to fulfill our unique mission.
>=20
> In the past we've chosen the latter for planet.mozilla.org.  I believe=20
> we need a core information flow and gathering space that is focused on=20
> what we all came to Mozilla for -- how to move our particular mission=20
> forward.

Mitchell,

First thank you for helping to clarify the issue and focus the discussion.

I have a few questions:

>From various forms of feedback we've had over the years, up to and includin=
g posts in response to this incident, Mozilla contributors have repeatedly =
said they desire a space that is an unedited collection of voices of Mozill=
a contributors, that may include personal content about those individuals' =
lives, beliefs, and non-Mozilla-related content.

Do you have a proposal to fill this desire? In such a "new-Planet world," w=
here would people seeking that go?

If we were to move Planet to a Mozilla-only-information format, who would b=
e responsible for content enforcement?

Would there be veto power by certain individuals? (A group?) Do you have a =
sense of what the chain for resolving such disputes, as we've seen here, mi=
ght be? Would we expect posts to be queued for review before posting to Pla=
net, or?=20

(I know these seem like a lot of details, but I'm trying to understand the =
mechanics of your proposal.)

Who do you envision would write the content policies for new-Planet content=
?

What would the consequences being for those who break it (either intentiona=
lly, or mistakenly, as Gerv has said was the case with this particular post=
)?

Would content regarding issues related to Mozilla, but not directly to its =
mission (for instance, the post on my own blog from last night) be consider=
ed part of new-Planet?

To be clear, I certainly see the necessity for multiple content feeds. As a=
 Planet Team module peer, I've said before, and will say again: we've large=
ly failed at providing this; I wish that weren't the case. (I know there ar=
e some technical issues with the aggregation software we use that we were t=
rying to overcome.)

So I'm definitely on board with _providing the ability_ to easily get at th=
e content you care about (which may be only-technical, or only-about-intern=
s, or only-about-women-in-Mozilla).

Taking a position gets more complex for me when we propose _entirely removi=
ng_ the ability to get "the RSS fire-hose" of the Community that we've alwa=
ys had in any form, and starting to try and define what is acceptable to di=
scuss.

Everyone loses a little bit of their own humanity when that happens, we los=
e the most powerful tool we have to engage, education, and empathize within=
 our own community, and Mozilla loses something too[0].

thanks,
preed

[0] If nothing other than I wouldn't know how to begin explaining to someon=
e that we stand for "An Open Web... that we ourselves only allow our own co=
mmunity to converse about certain things on."[1]
[1] You had to know I'd work a footnote in here somehow ;-)
0
jpreed
3/9/2012 6:07:06 AM
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 4:30:59 PM UTC-8, Mitchell Baker wrote:

> I believe the former is the best path.   It's a path based on the=20
> promise of the web, of inclusion, and of user sovereignty.  It's the=20
> path of the Mozilla Manifesto, and its adoption by people of all sorts=20
> of different views.    It allows us to focus on issues, such as SOPA and=
=20
> ACTA, that are directly related to our mission.   It allows Mozillians=20
> to have divergent views on other topics without tearing ourselves apart=
=20
> and damaging our ability to fulfill our unique mission.
>=20
> In the past we've chosen the latter for planet.mozilla.org.  I believe=20
> we need a core information flow and gathering space that is focused on=20
> what we all came to Mozilla for -- how to move our particular mission=20
> forward.

Mitchell,

First thank you for helping to clarify the issue and focus the discussion.

I have a few questions:

>From various forms of feedback we've had over the years, up to and includin=
g posts in response to this incident, Mozilla contributors have repeatedly =
said they desire a space that is an unedited collection of voices of Mozill=
a contributors, that may include personal content about those individuals' =
lives, beliefs, and non-Mozilla-related content.

Do you have a proposal to fill this desire? In such a "new-Planet world," w=
here would people seeking that go?

If we were to move Planet to a Mozilla-only-information format, who would b=
e responsible for content enforcement?

Would there be veto power by certain individuals? (A group?) Do you have a =
sense of what the chain for resolving such disputes, as we've seen here, mi=
ght be? Would we expect posts to be queued for review before posting to Pla=
net, or?=20

(I know these seem like a lot of details, but I'm trying to understand the =
mechanics of your proposal.)

Who do you envision would write the content policies for new-Planet content=
?

What would the consequences being for those who break it (either intentiona=
lly, or mistakenly, as Gerv has said was the case with this particular post=
)?

Would content regarding issues related to Mozilla, but not directly to its =
mission (for instance, the post on my own blog from last night) be consider=
ed part of new-Planet?

To be clear, I certainly see the necessity for multiple content feeds. As a=
 Planet Team module peer, I've said before, and will say again: we've large=
ly failed at providing this; I wish that weren't the case. (I know there ar=
e some technical issues with the aggregation software we use that we were t=
rying to overcome.)

So I'm definitely on board with _providing the ability_ to easily get at th=
e content you care about (which may be only-technical, or only-about-intern=
s, or only-about-women-in-Mozilla).

Taking a position gets more complex for me when we propose _entirely removi=
ng_ the ability to get "the RSS fire-hose" of the Community that we've alwa=
ys had in any form, and starting to try and define what is acceptable to di=
scuss.

Everyone loses a little bit of their own humanity when that happens, we los=
e the most powerful tool we have to engage, education, and empathize within=
 our own community, and Mozilla loses something too[0].

thanks,
preed

[0] If nothing other than I wouldn't know how to begin explaining to someon=
e that we stand for "An Open Web... that we ourselves only allow our own co=
mmunity to converse about certain things on."[1]
[1] You had to know I'd work a footnote in here somehow ;-)
0
jpreed
3/9/2012 6:07:06 AM
On Mar 8, 9:58=A0pm, n.netherc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Imagine that today we all agree that Planet should be for Mozilla-related=
 content only. =A0What happens if I violate that? =A0How is the rule enforc=
ed?
>
> What happens if I post something horrible but Mozilla-related, e.g. if I =
say something discriminatory about several Mozilla contributors. =A0I won't=
 have violated the new rule, but damage will be done, just as it was done e=
arlier this week.
>
> If our goal is to prevent this week's actions happening again, it seems t=
o me that the policy should not be "no non-Mozilla content on Planet" but r=
ather "no horrible (discriminatory, etc) content on Planet". =A0And without=
 some kind of pre-moderation of posts (which seems impractical) it's always=
 possible that someone will violate that policy. =A0So there need to be cle=
ar rules on how violations are dealt with -- who decides whether a post rep=
resents a violation, and what the follow-up action is.
>

Yes, I also think we should have community standards. Communities
establish norms for good behavior. It worries me that I see (even in
this very thread) Mozilla community leaders insisting that norms are
harmful. When people don't come together to set norms, the right thing
doesn't magically happen -- what happens is that bullies use power and
violence to dominate discussions. I don't think we want the Mozilla
community to be driven by bullying.

I don't think that having a code of conduct (something that, I
understand, has been in progress for a while) is at all opposed to
having Planet be focused on work. If there had been an expectation and
an understanding that Planet is for work-related content and that
purely personal blog posts should remain on individuals' blogs, then
this week's events would never have happened. Certainly, it's possible
for somebody to tie violent or discriminatory speech in with Mozilla-
related content, like the person who suggested that someone should
have their fingers cut off for disagreeing about the Firefox
versioning policy. That is why we need a code of conduct as well.

Cheers,
Tim
0
Tim
3/9/2012 7:45:14 AM
Asa Dotzler <asa@mozilla.org> wrote:
> I am the original Planet Mozilla Module Owner and currently support the
> Module as a Peer. These are my thoughts alone; I expect other Planet
> leaders will share here when they finish their day jobs. (The Module
> Owner and other two Peers are project volunteers.) That being said, I am
> confident that these views are in mostly line with those of the rest of
> the team and well represent the mission and purpose of the Planet Mozilla Module.
> 
> I think it's very important that people in this discussion get the
> opportunity to understand what the Planet Module has been trying to
> accomplish for the last half a decade before we all dive into "how to
> change it" discussion.
> 
> Mozilla is a large and growing community of people spread out all over
> the world. We don't all share offices and a neighborhood pub. We don't
> all have the opportunity for hallway conversations and grabbing a beer
> after work. As a widely distributed group, we face challenges getting to
> know each other, being able to build the camaraderie and trust that
> direct social interaction facilitates for traditional (not open-source) companies.
> 
> A big part of the Mission of the Planet Module is to aid in that
> challenge, to facilitate communication among a community of human beings
> -- people who share more than just a work product.
> 
> Mozilla is more than just some lines of code. It's more than a few
> websites. Mozilla is all about *people*.  Our Mission and Manifesto are
> about *people*. Our work is in support of *people*.
> 
> We create change in the world by organizing *people* and our forums for
> discussion and interaction, from IRC to Planet, all carve out space for
> *people* to relate to each other as human beings -- rather than simply a
> bunch of automatons in a factory cranking out products Foxconn style.
> 
> And we are not alone in this. Many of the most successful open source
> projects have set up Planets for this very same purpose. They realized as
> we have, that a healthy open source community is about people more than
> it is about code or products or anything else. Take a look at the
> excellent Gnome Planet for what this looks like when it works. It's
> inviting, and inspiring.
> 
> I realize that the recent events at Planet have caused many people a
> great deal of strife and wasted time. I empathize with those who feel
> wounded by some of the content that's made it into the Planet feed.
> 
> Some have said that we're just too big, that our community is of a size
> that requires giving up the rich and empowering diversity that we share
> across our various communications channels.
> 
> Others have said that they're simply not interested in the non-work lives
> of our global community. They are only interested in reading about what
> code others are writing or status updates on projects Mozilla is sponsoring.
> 
> I appreciate all of those views and concerns, and I would like Planet to
> address them. I believe that the Planet Module should address them. I
> have confidence that we can address them.
> 
> But I reject the idea that our community has somehow outgrown its ability
> to share as a group of human beings. I reject the idea that Planet
> requires an editorial regime to filter and censor or that participation
> in Planet should demand self-filtering and self-censoring of content. I
> reject the idea that our primary communications must be limited to only
> the technical and work related.
> 
> The Planet team has been working to make Planet more usable. We have
> pulled the robot-powered status updates and the project blogs into their
> own feed. http://planet.mozilla.org/projects/  We are also beginning work
> to create a sub-feed at Planet that will be exclusive to content about
> our mission and related work.
> 
> Planet has served us well over the 5 years since the formation of the
> Planet Module and it will continue to serve our amazing community going
> forward. To do that it will grow and evolve. But Planet should not
> devolve into sterile reports of only the lowest common denominator content.
> 
> Mozilla is more than just “a job” and I hope that Planet will continue to
> make that more obvious, not less.
> 
> - Asa

+1
0
david
3/9/2012 8:09:44 AM
On Friday, March 9, 2012 12:30:59 AM UTC, Mitchell Baker wrote:

>=20
> Proposals have been made to change planet,  or to start a similar=20
> planet.mozillians.org.  I'm personally learning towards the idea of=20
> remaking planet to be the gathering place for updates about Mozilla=20
> activities.  I'll talk with the planet module owners and peers, as well=
=20
> as monitor the discussion forums.  I'm not sure of the particular=20
> solution yet, but in my mind I'm clear that we need a forum focused on=20
> the thing we all agree on -- Mozilla and our mission.
>=20
> Mitchell

After delving into the interesting, if somewhat heated discussion on Gerv's=
 blog=20

"http://blog.gerv.net/2012/03/coalition-for-marriage-petition/#comments"

I agree that moving posts such as these to a new planet (mozillians.org) co=
uld be the best way forward. I think mozilla and mozillians should allow pe=
rsonal opinions outside of the Mozilla topical sphere, even if they are con=
troversial or vastly differing from the mainstream, so that an open discuss=
ion may continue.

There might be a mechanism that allows posts to be "moved" from one planet =
to the other, but that in itself might be viewed as a controversial act.

Axel


0
axel
3/9/2012 9:14:30 AM
On Friday, March 9, 2012 12:30:59 AM UTC, Mitchell Baker wrote:

>=20
> Proposals have been made to change planet,  or to start a similar=20
> planet.mozillians.org.  I'm personally learning towards the idea of=20
> remaking planet to be the gathering place for updates about Mozilla=20
> activities.  I'll talk with the planet module owners and peers, as well=
=20
> as monitor the discussion forums.  I'm not sure of the particular=20
> solution yet, but in my mind I'm clear that we need a forum focused on=20
> the thing we all agree on -- Mozilla and our mission.
>=20
> Mitchell

After delving into the interesting, if somewhat heated discussion on Gerv's=
 blog=20

"http://blog.gerv.net/2012/03/coalition-for-marriage-petition/#comments"

I agree that moving posts such as these to a new planet (mozillians.org) co=
uld be the best way forward. I think mozilla and mozillians should allow pe=
rsonal opinions outside of the Mozilla topical sphere, even if they are con=
troversial or vastly differing from the mainstream, so that an open discuss=
ion may continue.

There might be a mechanism that allows posts to be "moved" from one planet =
to the other, but that in itself might be viewed as a controversial act.

Axel


0
axel
3/9/2012 9:14:30 AM
So something like:

planet.mozilla.org - aggregated feed of Mozilla-mission posts; established content policies; "Report abuse" feature

MozilliansFirehose.com - anything and everything from a Mozillian?
0
luke
3/9/2012 3:11:20 PM
So something like:

planet.mozilla.org - aggregated feed of Mozilla-mission posts; established content policies; "Report abuse" feature

MozilliansFirehose.com - anything and everything from a Mozillian?
0
luke
3/9/2012 3:11:20 PM
Asa Dotzler schrieb:
> Mozilla is more than just some lines of code. It's more than a few
> websites. Mozilla is all about *people*. Our Mission and Manifesto are
> about *people*. Our work is in support of *people*.
>
> We create change in the world by organizing *people* and our forums for=

> discussion and interaction, from IRC to Planet, all carve out space for=

> *people* to relate to each other as human beings -- rather than simply =
a
> bunch of automatons in a factory cranking out products Foxconn style.
[...]
> Mozilla is more than just =93a job=94 and I hope that Planet will conti=
nue
> to make that more obvious, not less.

Fully agreed. I *want* to see all those differing, sometimes=20
controversial, opinions of the people in our project. I've developed a=20
thick skin and a good sense what to read in what detail to be able to=20
grasp it all, I think anyone who wants to fully live Mozilla would do=20
good if (s)he would go a similar way.


I can envision having another feed for all those who are only interested =

in sterile work, where we can only subscribe our feeds to if we care=20
that only strictly "Mozilla" topics go in there.

Robert Kaiser

0
Robert
3/9/2012 4:55:06 PM
On 09/03/12 00:30, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> This week has seen heated discussion about the scope of materials
> syndicated to Planet Mozilla.   Here's my view.

+1.

Gerv
0
Gervase
3/9/2012 4:57:35 PM
On 09/03/12 06:07, jpreed@gmail.com wrote:
> What would the consequences being for those who break it (either
> intentionally, or mistakenly, as Gerv has said was the case with this
> particular post)?

A small point of clarification; I have not (as far as I can remember)
said that. It is not possible, either intentionally or mistakenly, to
break an "all content is welcome" content policy.

Gerv
0
Gervase
3/9/2012 4:57:56 PM
On 09-03-12 11:55 , Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Asa Dotzler schrieb:
>> Mozilla is more than just �a job� and I hope that Planet will continue
>> to make that more obvious, not less.
> Fully agreed. I *want* to see all those differing, sometimes
> controversial, opinions of the people in our project. I've developed a
> thick skin and a good sense what to read in what detail to be able to
> grasp it all, I think anyone who wants to fully live Mozilla would do
> good if (s)he would go a similar way.

I think that requiring a thick skin to contribute to Mozilla would 
exclude many people whose input and contributions we want.

> I can envision having another feed for all those who are only interested
> in sterile work, where we can only subscribe our feeds to if we care
> that only strictly "Mozilla" topics go in there.

Can you imagine a middle ground between "anything goes" and "sterile 
work"?  How about "no controversial topics, but all the personal stuff 
you want"?  Would that be good enough in your opinion, or do you really 
feel that taking stands on divisive issues (and possibly splitting the 
community, and likely driving away people who don't want to deal with 
the controversies) is necessary?

Later,
Blake.
0
Blake
3/9/2012 5:09:53 PM
Blake Winton schrieb:
> Can you imagine a middle ground between "anything goes" and "sterile
> work"? How about "no controversial topics, but all the personal stuff
> you want"?

I think that would raise the question if WoMoz or, say, an LBGT event, 
or even stuff like dropping support for older OSes must be excluded as 
well because those all will be seen as controversial by some group of 
people.

Robert Kaiser
0
Robert
3/9/2012 5:14:08 PM
Sorry if this goes through twice, I didn't have JS enabled the first
time.

On Mar 9, 9:46 am, "Robert O'Callahan" <rob...@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> I agree completely with what Mitchell said.

ditto

> I think we can have a generous definition of what "Mozilla-related" content
> is, and err on the side of generosity. I expect we won't run into problems
> there, and I don't think we'll need a predefined enforcement procedure for
> violations.

+1

--ramble--
For what it's worth, I've always been interested in getting to know
Mozillians beyond their Mozilla work and efforts. Doing so, I've
formed some great relationships and have learned some interesting
things like Mitchell makes cool quilts, and that Mary is an awesome
athlete, and that Asa digs high tech sneakers.

My best friend is a Mozillian who has totally opposite religious
beliefs than I do. Other Mozillian friends have different political
and/or moral beliefs or other stances yet we're still friends and it
isn't that I was a horrible person at one time, but I will tell you
that being a part of Mozilla for the past 8 years and getting to
actually know people has taught me to be more tolerant, accepting, and
less closed minded because I've focused more on the things that we do
have in common and realized that others are actually great people,
they just believe in something different than I do.

It would be great for Mozilla, heck, the World if we all could do that
so perhaps y'all could give that some thought.
--end ramble--

In any event, I agree with Mitchell and with Asa's human element
comments, but like I said, there's Facebook and other venues that
weren't in place a few years back for actually getting to know people.

Ken

0
Ken
3/9/2012 5:28:40 PM
On Mar 8, 6:30=A0pm, Mitchell Baker <mitch...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> This week has seen heated discussion about the scope of materials
> syndicated to Planet Mozilla. =A0 Here's my view.
>
> Mozilla is a community unified around the Mozilla mission and manifesto.
> =A0 We agree on these things, but we are extremely diverse on almost ever=
y
> other topic. =A0In fact, Mozilla is remarkable in how many people with
> otherwise differing views we gather around our mission.
>
> How do we handle this?
>
> First, we should be very clear that being a "Mozillian" is about
> supporting the Mozilla mission. =A0If we start to try to make "Mozilla"
> mean "those people who share not only the Mozilla mission but also my
> general political / social / religious / environmental view" we will
> fail. =A0 If we focus Mozilla on our shared consensus regarding the
> Mozilla mission and manifesto then the opportunities before us are
> enormous.
>
> Mozilla's diversity is a success condition. =A0Our mission and our goal i=
s
> truly global. =A0Our mission taps into a shared desire for respect and
> control and user sovereignty that runs across cultures and across many
> other worldviews. =A0 =A0We may even offend each other in some of our oth=
er
> views. =A0 Despite this, we share a commitment to the Mozilla mission.
> This is a remarkable achievement and important to our continued success.
>
> What does this mean for how we handle planet.mozilla.org?
>
> We could say that Planet Mozilla focuses on our mission and related
> work. =A0 =A0This view means getting to know the full personality of
> Mozillians will take more work and happen in other areas for those who
> want to do so.
>
> We could say that Planet Mozilla reflects the general worldview of
> Mozillians, including areas outside of the Mozilla consensus. =A0 =A0This
> view expresses a larger slice of each Mozillian's life, but means we'll
> spend more time reacting to areas where we disagree or even offend each
> other.
>
> I believe the former is the best path. =A0 It's a path based on the
> promise of the web, of inclusion, and of user sovereignty. =A0It's the
> path of the Mozilla Manifesto, and its adoption by people of all sorts
> of different views. =A0 =A0It allows us to focus on issues, such as SOPA =
and
> ACTA, that are directly related to our mission. =A0 It allows Mozillians
> to have divergent views on other topics without tearing ourselves apart
> and damaging our ability to fulfill our unique mission.
>
> In the past we've chosen the latter for planet.mozilla.org. =A0I believe
> we need a core information flow and gathering space that is focused on
> what we all came to Mozilla for -- how to move our particular mission
> forward.
>
> Proposals have been made to change planet, =A0or to start a similar
> planet.mozillians.org. =A0I'm personally learning towards the idea of
> remaking planet to be the gathering place for updates about Mozilla
> activities. =A0I'll talk with the planet module owners and peers, as well
> as monitor the discussion forums. =A0I'm not sure of the particular
> solution yet, but in my mind I'm clear that we need a forum focused on
> the thing we all agree on -- Mozilla and our mission.
>
> Mitchell

At the risk of wading into a conversation that I've not been invited
to, I wanted to propose that "fixing" Planet Mozilla is not merely a
matter of technical "plumbing." IMHO, it's a challenge that requires a
*human* solution.

I spoke with several folks in the Mozilla community last year and
asked them what they loved about Planet Mozilla, and what needed
improvement. Some of the themes from those conversations are
summarized here:

http://www.phillipadsmith.com/2011/12/rethinking-planet-mozilla-the-challen=
ge-of-too-much-signal.html
http://www.phillipadsmith.com/2011/12/rethinking-planet-mozilla-hacking-the=
-core-of-mozillas-story.html

Planet Mozilla is _one_ fire hose of Mozilla's activities, but there
are many others now: e-mail lists and groups, blogs that aren't on the
planet, social media, events, conference calls, and so on. Planet
Mozilla -- if one kept the name and intention, but let go of the
historical idea of a "Planet" as an RSS feed aggregator -- could be so
much more than it is today.

Viva Planet Mozilla! :)

Phillip.
0
phillipadsmith
3/9/2012 5:39:58 PM
On 09-03-12 12:14, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Blake Winton schrieb:
>> Can you imagine a middle ground between "anything goes" and "sterile
>> work"? How about "no controversial topics, but all the personal stuff
>> you want"?
>
> I think that would raise the question if WoMoz or, say, an LBGT event,
> or even stuff like dropping support for older OSes must be excluded as
> well because those all will be seen as controversial by some group of
> people.

Yes, exactly.  It certainly raises the question.  It seems to me that a 
reasonable basis for what to include and what to exclude would be the 
things mentioned explicitly in the Mozilla Harassment Policy.  (Sorry, 
OS/2 and Amiga lovers!  ;)

I notice you still haven't answered whether or not you feel that taking 
stands on divisive issues (and possibly splitting the community, and 
likely driving away people who don't want to deal with the 
controversies) is necessary, though.

Later,
Blake.
0
Blake
3/9/2012 5:43:13 PM
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Blake Winton <bwinton@latte.ca> wrote:
>
> Can you imagine a middle ground between "anything goes" and "sterile work=
"?
> =A0How about "no controversial topics, but all the personal stuff you wan=
t"?
> =A0Would that be good enough in your opinion, or do you really feel that
> taking stands on divisive issues (and possibly splitting the community, a=
nd
> likely driving away people who don't want to deal with the controversies)=
 is
> necessary?
>

How do you define "controversial topics"?  Or better yet, who gets to?

While I love the idea*, I can't imagine how this would work in
practice as the community grows and diversifies.  Something that's not
controversial in one place may be a hot button issue in another.  I
know I'm not culturally aware enough of every place mozillians are
(all 7 continents) to feel 100% comfortable about that.


* preed I think put it better than anyone in his blog post my personal
sentiments towards what the planet team has been trying for and how
every decision has been made, it's highly relevant, and I suggest a
read if you can spare a few minutes:
http://soberbuildengineer.com/blog/2012/03/a-stroll-through-planet-mozilla-=
history/

--=20
Robert Accettura
robert@accettura.com
0
Robert
3/9/2012 5:45:05 PM
On 3/8/2012 4:30 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> This week has seen heated discussion about the scope of materials
> syndicated to Planet Mozilla. Here's my view.
>
> Mozilla is a community unified around the Mozilla mission and manifesto.
> We agree on these things, but we are extremely diverse on almost every
> other topic. In fact, Mozilla is remarkable in how many people with
> otherwise differing views we gather around our mission.
>
> How do we handle this?
>
> First, we should be very clear that being a "Mozillian" is about
> supporting the Mozilla mission. If we start to try to make "Mozilla"
> mean "those people who share not only the Mozilla mission but also my
> general political / social / religious / environmental view" we will
> fail. If we focus Mozilla on our shared consensus regarding the Mozilla
> mission and manifesto then the opportunities before us are enormous.
>
> Mozilla's diversity is a success condition. Our mission and our goal is
> truly global. Our mission taps into a shared desire for respect and
> control and user sovereignty that runs across cultures and across many
> other worldviews. We may even offend each other in some of our other
> views. Despite this, we share a commitment to the Mozilla mission. This
> is a remarkable achievement and important to our continued success.
>
> What does this mean for how we handle planet.mozilla.org?
>
> We could say that Planet Mozilla focuses on our mission and related
> work. This view means getting to know the full personality of Mozillians
> will take more work and happen in other areas for those who want to do so.
>
> We could say that Planet Mozilla reflects the general worldview of
> Mozillians, including areas outside of the Mozilla consensus. This view
> expresses a larger slice of each Mozillian's life, but means we'll spend
> more time reacting to areas where we disagree or even offend each other.
>
> I believe the former is the best path. It's a path based on the promise
> of the web, of inclusion, and of user sovereignty. It's the path of the
> Mozilla Manifesto, and its adoption by people of all sorts of different
> views. It allows us to focus on issues, such as SOPA and ACTA, that are
> directly related to our mission. It allows Mozillians to have divergent
> views on other topics without tearing ourselves apart and damaging our
> ability to fulfill our unique mission.
>
> In the past we've chosen the latter for planet.mozilla.org. I believe we
> need a core information flow and gathering space that is focused on what
> we all came to Mozilla for -- how to move our particular mission forward.
>
> Proposals have been made to change planet, or to start a similar
> planet.mozillians.org. I'm personally learning towards the idea of
> remaking planet to be the gathering place for updates about Mozilla
> activities. I'll talk with the planet module owners and peers, as well
> as monitor the discussion forums. I'm not sure of the particular
> solution yet, but in my mind I'm clear that we need a forum focused on
> the thing we all agree on -- Mozilla and our

I support this proposal. The current notion that planet.mozilla.org is a 
collection of free speech that doesn't have obvious connections to the 
Mozilla mission is entirely non-obvious. I know quite a few people who 
would benefit from following planet, but avoid it because of the 
terrible signal/noise ratio.

I would be more comfortable posting non-Mozilla related items if I knew 
that they would go onto a separate aggregator.


Taras
0
Taras
3/9/2012 7:07:36 PM
On Friday, March 9, 2012 8:57:56 AM UTC-8, Gervase Markham wrote:

> A small point of clarification; I have not (as far as I can remember)
> said that. It is not possible, either intentionally or mistakenly, to
> break an "all content is welcome" content policy.

Apologies Gerv.

Lots of words exchanged with lots of people on this in the past 56 hours. :=
-)

I think my memory is keying off of you saying something about having recent=
ly moved to a new Wordpress installation, and changes to the way your feed =
was syndicated due to that? I may have inferred that to mean "I didn't thin=
k this would get syndicated to Planet, but it did" and thus it being a mist=
ake in that regard, not in regards to breaking any content policy.

Your analysis is spot on about it being impossible to break an "all content=
 is welcome"-policy.

sorry about that,
preed
0
jpreed
3/9/2012 7:29:28 PM
On 3/9/2012 11:07 AM, Taras Glek wrote:
  > I know quite a few people who
> would benefit from following planet, but avoid it because of the
> terrible signal/noise ratio.

About 80% of the people who syndicate to Planet have a mozilla-specific 
feed. Of the ones who don't, fewer than half of those posts are not 
mozilla-specific. I get that for some, 90+% "meets my topical interests" 
is a terrible signal/noise ratio.  For me, that's not the case. For 
many, who wish to learn more about their colleagues and would prefer a 
Planet closer to what most other open source projects offer, it is a 
terrible signal to noise ratio with far too much boring project status 
information.

- A
0
Asa
3/9/2012 8:35:42 PM
On 3/8/2012 4:30 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> This week has seen heated discussion about the scope of materials
> syndicated to Planet Mozilla.   Here's my view.
>
> Mozilla is a community unified around the Mozilla mission and manifesto.
>   We agree on these things, but we are extremely diverse on almost every
> other topic.  In fact, Mozilla is remarkable in how many people with
> otherwise differing views we gather around our mission.
>
> How do we handle this?

One thing that I fear isn't clear in this discussion is that Planet is 
an official Mozilla Module. It has an Owner and a set of Peers. Those 
people are responsible for the Planet roadmap, reviewing changes to 
Planet, and all Planet policies. The Planet Module Owner is the ultimate 
say in what happens with the Planet Module -- just like all of the Owned 
code modules in Mozilla's HG repo.

So, we're not dealing with a popular vote here -- just as we wouldn't 
put the decisions and policies of the GFX Module Owner up for a popular 
vote.

What this is, as I see it, is an attempt by some in the community to 
overrule the Planet Module Owner, to force a change to the Planet 
policy. In the code world that would be the equivalent of a handful of 
contributors challenging the decision making of the GFX Module Owner, 
and when those contributors didn't get satisfaction, taking it to 
Brendan with the hope that Brendan would overrule the GFX Module Owner.

I just want that to be clear because it has real implications for the 
governance of the project. This project has very rarely escalated to 
Brendan to see the plans, work, or policy of a code Module Owner 
overruled.  That's what's happening right now.

- A


0
Asa
3/9/2012 8:58:06 PM
On 2012-03-09, at 3:58 PM, Asa Dotzler <asa@mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 3/8/2012 4:30 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>> This week has seen heated discussion about the scope of materials
>> syndicated to Planet Mozilla.   Here's my view.
>>=20
>> Mozilla is a community unified around the Mozilla mission and manifesto.
>> We agree on these things, but we are extremely diverse on almost every
>> other topic.  In fact, Mozilla is remarkable in how many people with
>> otherwise differing views we gather around our mission.
>>=20
>> How do we handle this?
>=20
> One thing that I fear isn't clear in this discussion is that Planet is an=
 official Mozilla Module. It has an Owner and a set of Peers. Those people =
are responsible for the Planet roadmap, reviewing changes to Planet, and al=
l Planet policies. The Planet Module Owner is the ultimate say in what happ=
ens with the Planet Module -- just like all of the Owned code modules in Mo=
zilla's HG repo.
>=20
> So, we're not dealing with a popular vote here -- just as we wouldn't put=
 the decisions and policies of the GFX Module Owner up for a popular vote.
>=20
> What this is, as I see it, is an attempt by some in the community to over=
rule the Planet Module Owner, to force a change to the Planet policy. In th=
e code world that would be the equivalent of a handful of contributors chal=
lenging the decision making of the GFX Module Owner, and when those contrib=
utors didn't get satisfaction, taking it to Brendan with the hope that Bren=
dan would overrule the GFX Module Owner.
>=20
> I just want that to be clear because it has real implications for the gov=
ernance of the project. This project has very rarely escalated to Brendan t=
o see the plans, work, or policy of a code Module Owner overruled.  That's =
what's happening right now.

Asa,

I can't speak for anyone else, but this is certainly something I deeply und=
erstand, both as someone who has served the project as a module owner and p=
eer in multiple areas, and a member of the Module Ownership group.

It is fortunately quite rare for anyone to seek to formally override a modu=
le owner decision, let alone unseat a module owner.  In general, we delegat=
e substantial authority to module owners and grant them a mandate to act in=
 the best interests of the project.  However, those module owners are still=
 responsible to the project as a whole, just as any responsible leader is r=
esponsible to their constituents.  If any module owner makes choices that a=
re considered harmful to the Mozilla project and community, it feels both n=
atural and healthy to reconsider those choices and that mandate as a commun=
ity.

At this point, we have a polarized and painful divide within the community.=
  An significant minority group feels alienated and afraid, and the officia=
l response from the Planet owner and peers has seemingly exacerbated the pr=
oblem, based on the comments on that post.  Under the circumstances, I see =
no other alternative than to escalate the issue past the module owner level=
, and allow us to discuss and act (if we decide to act) as a community.  Th=
is is not an opinion I came to lightly, or without regret, but I hope you c=
an see that this issue has implications far exceeding the scope of a single=
 module.

- Mike
0
Mike
3/9/2012 11:27:58 PM
People should be able to get to know each other, but as you've stated, 90%
of planet posters are not using planet for this purpose. Clearly this is
not the tool people want to use to meet this goal. You've not restricted
their ability to do so, and yet they're choosing not to anyway.

If this were a Firefox UI discussion, you would not force something to do
what 10% of the people wanted and ignore how 90% want to do it. You would
find a better way to satisfy that 10%. Mozillians, status.net, a twitter
aggregator... all things people have asked for.

yes, we're talking about this because situation a) happened, but it is
pretty clear that most people actually want situation b) and this was their
chance to discuss it.

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Mike Connor <mconnor@mozilla.com> wrote:

>
> On 2012-03-09, at 3:58 PM, Asa Dotzler <asa@mozilla.org> wrote:
>
> > On 3/8/2012 4:30 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> >> This week has seen heated discussion about the scope of materials
> >> syndicated to Planet Mozilla.   Here's my view.
> >>
> >> Mozilla is a community unified around the Mozilla mission and manifesto.
> >> We agree on these things, but we are extremely diverse on almost every
> >> other topic.  In fact, Mozilla is remarkable in how many people with
> >> otherwise differing views we gather around our mission.
> >>
> >> How do we handle this?
> >
> > One thing that I fear isn't clear in this discussion is that Planet is
> an official Mozilla Module. It has an Owner and a set of Peers. Those
> people are responsible for the Planet roadmap, reviewing changes to Planet,
> and all Planet policies. The Planet Module Owner is the ultimate say in
> what happens with the Planet Module -- just like all of the Owned code
> modules in Mozilla's HG repo.
> >
> > So, we're not dealing with a popular vote here -- just as we wouldn't
> put the decisions and policies of the GFX Module Owner up for a popular
> vote.
> >
> > What this is, as I see it, is an attempt by some in the community to
> overrule the Planet Module Owner, to force a change to the Planet policy.
> In the code world that would be the equivalent of a handful of contributors
> challenging the decision making of the GFX Module Owner, and when those
> contributors didn't get satisfaction, taking it to Brendan with the hope
> that Brendan would overrule the GFX Module Owner.
> >
> > I just want that to be clear because it has real implications for the
> governance of the project. This project has very rarely escalated to
> Brendan to see the plans, work, or policy of a code Module Owner overruled.
>  That's what's happening right now.
>
> Asa,
>
> I can't speak for anyone else, but this is certainly something I deeply
> understand, both as someone who has served the project as a module owner
> and peer in multiple areas, and a member of the Module Ownership group.
>
> It is fortunately quite rare for anyone to seek to formally override a
> module owner decision, let alone unseat a module owner.  In general, we
> delegate substantial authority to module owners and grant them a mandate to
> act in the best interests of the project.  However, those module owners are
> still responsible to the project as a whole, just as any responsible leader
> is responsible to their constituents.  If any module owner makes choices
> that are considered harmful to the Mozilla project and community, it feels
> both natural and healthy to reconsider those choices and that mandate as a
> community.
>
> At this point, we have a polarized and painful divide within the
> community.  An significant minority group feels alienated and afraid, and
> the official response from the Planet owner and peers has seemingly
> exacerbated the problem, based on the comments on that post.  Under the
> circumstances, I see no other alternative than to escalate the issue past
> the module owner level, and allow us to discuss and act (if we decide to
> act) as a community.  This is not an opinion I came to lightly, or without
> regret, but I hope you can see that this issue has implications far
> exceeding the scope of a single module.
>
> - Mike
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
0
Majken
3/10/2012 12:16:01 AM
On 3/9/2012 3:27 PM, Mike Connor wrote:
>
> On 2012-03-09, at 3:58 PM, Asa Dotzler <asa@mozilla.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/8/2012 4:30 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>>> This week has seen heated discussion about the scope of materials
>>> syndicated to Planet Mozilla.   Here's my view.
>>>
>>> Mozilla is a community unified around the Mozilla mission and manifesto.
>>> We agree on these things, but we are extremely diverse on almost every
>>> other topic.  In fact, Mozilla is remarkable in how many people with
>>> otherwise differing views we gather around our mission.
>>>
>>> How do we handle this?
>>
>> One thing that I fear isn't clear in this discussion is that Planet is an official Mozilla Module. It has an Owner and a set of Peers. Those people are responsible for the Planet roadmap, reviewing changes to Planet, and all Planet policies. The Planet Module Owner is the ultimate say in what happens with the Planet Module -- just like all of the Owned code modules in Mozilla's HG repo.
>>
>> So, we're not dealing with a popular vote here -- just as we wouldn't put the decisions and policies of the GFX Module Owner up for a popular vote.
>>
>> What this is, as I see it, is an attempt by some in the community to overrule the Planet Module Owner, to force a change to the Planet policy. In the code world that would be the equivalent of a handful of contributors challenging the decision making of the GFX Module Owner, and when those contributors didn't get satisfaction, taking it to Brendan with the hope that Brendan would overrule the GFX Module Owner.
>>
>> I just want that to be clear because it has real implications for the governance of the project. This project has very rarely escalated to Brendan to see the plans, work, or policy of a code Module Owner overruled.  That's what's happening right now.
>
> Asa,
>
> I can't speak for anyone else, but this is certainly something I deeply understand, both as someone who has served the project as a module owner and peer in multiple areas, and a member of the Module Ownership group.
>
> It is fortunately quite rare for anyone to seek to formally override a module owner decision, let alone unseat a module owner.  In general, we delegate substantial authority to module owners and grant them a mandate to act in the best interests of the project.  However, those module owners are still responsible to the project as a whole, just as any responsible leader is responsible to their constituents.  If any module owner makes choices that are considered harmful to the Mozilla project and community, it feels both natural and healthy to reconsider those choices and that mandate as a community.
>
> At this point, we have a polarized and painful divide within the community.  An significant minority group feels alienated and afraid, and the official response from the Planet owner and peers has seemingly exacerbated the problem, based on the comments on that post.  Under the circumstances, I see no other alternative than to escalate the issue past the module owner level, and allow us to discuss and act (if we decide to act) as a community.  This is not an opinion I came to lightly, or without regret, but I hope you can see that this issue has implications far exceeding the scope of a single module.
>
> - Mike
>

Mike, I agree with you here for the most part. I just want people who 
don't have your experience with our governance system to understand what 
they're involved in.

- A
0
Asa
3/10/2012 12:30:47 AM
On 3/9/2012 4:16 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
> People should be able to get to know each other, but as you've stated, 90%
> of planet posters are not using planet for this purpose. Clearly this is
> not the tool people want to use to meet this goal. You've not restricted
> their ability to do so, and yet they're choosing not to anyway.
>
> If this were a Firefox UI discussion, you would not force something to do
> what 10% of the people wanted and ignore how 90% want to do it. You would
> find a better way to satisfy that 10%. Mozillians, status.net, a twitter
> aggregator... all things people have asked for.
>
> yes, we're talking about this because situation a) happened, but it is
> pretty clear that most people actually want situation b) and this was their
> chance to discuss it.

It is not at all clear what "most people want". A large portion of the 
people on Planet who have responded to me have said things like "I got 
on back in the old days and didn't even know I could syndicate my whole 
feed" or "I just did what my manager told me" and there are a 
non-trivial number of people have no personal blogs and only have a 
Mozilla blog that they only blog about Mozilla on but that does not mean 
that they don't enjoy reading posts from other people on other topics.

To assert that it is clear what most people want is unfair to the 
discussion. Without data, you're jumping to conclusions and asking for 
something not (yet) supported by the data.

- A
0
Asa
3/10/2012 12:33:47 AM
Well I had data. According to you it was the wrong data. So let's get the
right data. Meanwhile, if people weren't submitting their full feeds, and
planet policy is to have the full feed then IMO the planet team failed the
system they want by not informing people they could also submit their full
feed. You're arguing for something that hasn't existed in practice.

More importantly this is not a decision that should be made based on what
people enjoy (lots of people enjoy old Firefox features and not uprading)
but on what makes sense and what works. I would appreciate more discussion
along the lines of how it works if you're defending using planet for this
purpose. You haven't said why planet is a better tool than others for this
goal. You haven't taken into account the repercussions of the exponential
increase in posts to planet if everyone posts their full feed, and if
everyone in the Mozilla community gets to have their full blog syndicated
on planet.

We have about 250 people in the reps program alone (going off of the people
who have completed their ReMo profile on the wiki
https://wiki.mozilla.org/ReMo/People) then there are about, 700 employees,
there is a little bit of overlap so 950 gives us a good number since this
doesn't represent the whole community, nor regular team posts like meeting
notes. Let's assume they average 1 post a week. That's already 135 posts a
day. You could read that in an hour if you read daily at a rate of 2 posts
a minute, though that doesn't include time for longer posts, videos,
commenting, reading links contained in the blogs. This is just to get a
ballpark of the magnitude we're talking about. Obviously we'd need to do
some real counting, but I think if planet is working the way you want it
to, this is a good estimate.


On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Asa Dotzler <asa@mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 3/9/2012 4:16 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
>
>> People should be able to get to know each other, but as you've stated, 90%
>> of planet posters are not using planet for this purpose. Clearly this is
>> not the tool people want to use to meet this goal. You've not restricted
>> their ability to do so, and yet they're choosing not to anyway.
>>
>> If this were a Firefox UI discussion, you would not force something to do
>> what 10% of the people wanted and ignore how 90% want to do it. You would
>> find a better way to satisfy that 10%. Mozillians, status.net, a twitter
>> aggregator... all things people have asked for.
>>
>> yes, we're talking about this because situation a) happened, but it is
>> pretty clear that most people actually want situation b) and this was
>> their
>> chance to discuss it.
>>
>
> It is not at all clear what "most people want". A large portion of the
> people on Planet who have responded to me have said things like "I got on
> back in the old days and didn't even know I could syndicate my whole feed"
> or "I just did what my manager told me" and there are a non-trivial number
> of people have no personal blogs and only have a Mozilla blog that they
> only blog about Mozilla on but that does not mean that they don't enjoy
> reading posts from other people on other topics.
>
> To assert that it is clear what most people want is unfair to the
> discussion. Without data, you're jumping to conclusions and asking for
> something not (yet) supported by the data.
>
> - A
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/governance<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>
>
0
Majken
3/10/2012 1:03:18 AM
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Asa Dotzler <asa@mozilla.org> wrote:
>
> One thing that I fear isn't clear in this discussion is that Planet is an
> official Mozilla Module. It has an Owner and a set of Peers. Those people
> are responsible for the Planet roadmap, reviewing changes to Planet, and =
all
> Planet policies. The Planet Module Owner is the ultimate say in what happ=
ens
> with the Planet Module -- just like all of the Owned code modules in
> Mozilla's HG repo.
>
> So, we're not dealing with a popular vote here -- just as we wouldn't put
> the decisions and policies of the GFX Module Owner up for a popular vote.
>
> What this is, as I see it, is an attempt by some in the community to
> overrule the Planet Module Owner, to force a change to the Planet policy.=
 In
> the code world that would be the equivalent of a handful of contributors
> challenging the decision making of the GFX Module Owner, and when those
> contributors didn't get satisfaction, taking it to Brendan with the hope
> that Brendan would overrule the GFX Module Owner.
>
> I just want that to be clear because it has real implications for the
> governance of the project. This project has very rarely escalated to Bren=
dan
> to see the plans, work, or policy of a code Module Owner overruled. =A0Th=
at's
> what's happening right now.

That sounds like an accurate description to me, except for the "has
real implications for the governance of the project" part.
http://www.mozilla.org/about/roles.html is relevant here:

"The ultimate decision-maker(s) are trusted members of the community
who have the final say in the case of disputes. This is a model
followed by many successful open source projects, although most of
those communities only have one person in this role, and they are
sometimes called the "benevolent dictator". Mozilla has evolved to
have two people in this role - Brendan Eich has the final say in any
technical dispute and Mitchell Baker has the final say in any
non-technical dispute. This has been the case since 1998 for Brendan
and 1999 for Mitchell."

It sounds to me like Mitchell has the final call on this matter, and
given how controversial this matter is, she will have to make that
final call.

Now, an important question here is:  what is "this matter"?  Is it:

(a) Should non-Mozilla-related content be allowed on Planet?

or

(b) Should discriminatory content be allowed on Planet (and other
Mozilla communication channels)?

In Mitchell's first message in this thread she said:

"I'm personally learning towards the idea of
remaking planet to be the gathering place for updates about Mozilla
activities.  I'll talk with the planet module owners and peers, as well
as monitor the discussion forums."

This focused on (a).  In my opinion, (b) is the question that matters
and the one that Mitchell should be focusing on, and (a) is an
entirely separate matter that the Planet module owners and peers
should decide.  But Mitchell has the final say.

Nick
0
Nicholas
3/10/2012 1:43:53 AM
[Wrote this last night, and have not caught up with the flood of new 
comments.]

On 3/8/12 4:30 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:

> Proposals have been made to change planet, or to start a similar
> planet.mozillians.org. I'm personally learning towards the idea of
> remaking planet to be the gathering place for updates about Mozilla
> activities.

It's hard to disagree with Mitchell's points about the Mozilla mission, 
manifesto, and unique community.

But I strongly believe that changing Planet Mozilla is the wrong 
discussion to be having, about the wrong things, and at the wrong time.

PMO certainly has a bunch of problems. People have been grumbling about 
it for a long time -- it's high-volume, often repetitive, clogged with 
meeting notes, and so on. There's clearly work to be be done. Some 
changes were already underway, and it's entirely possible that even 
larger changes may be needed.

Until 5 days ago this was a tranquil, low-priority issue. The Planet 
Mozilla blog has been posting for months 
[http://blog.mozilla.com/planet/2011/09/23/updating-planet-mozilla-policy/] 
about planned improvements and changes to policy, which generated little 
interest. Most comments there seemed concerned that the spinning-off of 
"project" blogs could result in the community missing out on 
announcements or interesting posts.

What happened 5 days ago? Well, obviously Gerv's post regarding a 
petition to keep the term "marriage" in the UK defined as "one man and 
one woman". And then came the resulting firestorm of criticism, ranging 
from "this doesn't belong on Planet" to accusations of "hate speech". 
People said they felt attacked, excluded, and belittled.


So why are we talking about a broad policy change instead of how to 
address the specific issue/content that's causing strife?


I could understand if this was a pervasive or frequent problem. But it's 
not. Instead, this feels like punishing everyone for a few isolated 
incidents, years apart.

I could also understand if this was an effective remedy. But it's not. 
Restricting content to mission-related content does nothing to address 
objectionable content. Take, for instance, the plethora of recent 
examples in our industry where speakers at conferences have made 
on-topic but shockingly misogynistic presentations.

I might even understand if it was a complete solution, but again it's 
not. Blogs are just one medium of many. Newsgroups. Air Mozilla. Email 
lists. Facebook. IRC. Yammer. Forums. Office bulletin boards. Heck, just 
_talking_ with other Mozillians in a community space or other official 
gathering. All have the potential for objectionable use, a good solution 
should cover all of them.


Instead of talking about Planet Mozilla policy right now, I'd suggest we 
should be doing the following:

1) Create a Mozillian Code Of Conduct; including expectations, 
boundaries, caution areas -- part of the current problem is that there 
are widely varying ideas of what's appropriate in the community and what 
current PMO policy is. I vaguely remember Myk starting something along 
these lines years ago (bug 364003?), but I'm not sure what became of it. 
More recently there's been a general trend of improving the tone of 
communication -- the efforts of dmose, Stormy, and Mozilla Conductors 
all come to mind.

2) Begin a discussion of potential responses for when Mozillians violate 
#1, so there are some existing suggestions or shared understanding of 
who can do what and when (instead of winging things in the 
heat/confusion of the moment).

3) Determine some final response for the current issue. A thing 
happened, a lot of people are upset, but eventually we need to find 
closure and move on (it will be impossible to satisfy everyone). The PMO 
Module Owners have already posted their response. I presume that given 
the scale of the ongoing debate we're at 
http://www.mozilla.org/about/roles.html#ultimate-decision-makers and 
hence Mitchell's starting of this thread?

4) After a cooling-off period (a month from now?), re-open discussion on 
Planet Mozilla policy changes. We know it's broken, but everyone is in 
defensive/reactive-mode right now. Let's be sure there's a clear 
separation between general PMO improvements and the content that's the 
immediate issue.

Justin

0
Justin
3/10/2012 1:53:22 AM
On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 20:03:18 -0500
Majken Connor <majken@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well I had data. According to you it was the wrong data. So let's get the
> right data.

Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I don't see any actual data
presented by you in this thread. Would you please show me where this
data is located so I may take a look at it? Thanks.

> Meanwhile, if people weren't submitting their full feeds, and
> planet policy is to have the full feed then IMO the planet team failed the
> system they want by not informing people they could also submit their full
> feed. You're arguing for something that hasn't existed in practice.

I think you misunderstand the current Planet policy. The policy is that
Mozillians are welcome to use whatever feed URL they like for their
addition, but we encourage people to use a full blog feed URL. However,
again, the final decision rests with the Mozillian requesting to be
added. Based on my reading of addition requests over the past years,
I'd say that we do a pretty good job at informing people they are
welcome to use their full feed, especially if they are unsure of what
feed URL to provide.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Planet_Mozilla#Being_added_to_Planet_Mozilla
lists the steps needed to get a blog added to Planet.

~reed
0
Reed
3/10/2012 2:01:38 AM
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Justin Dolske <dolske@mozilla.com> wrote:
 >
> 1) Create a Mozillian Code Of Conduct...
> 2) Begin a discussion of potential responses for when Mozillians violate #1...
> 3) Determine some final response for the current issue...
> 4) After a cooling-off period (a month from now?), re-open discussion on
> Planet Mozilla policy changes...

Yes!

(What you just wrote describes my position on this matter more
comprehensively, eloquently, and concisely than anything I've written
in this thread.)

Nick
0
Nicholas
3/10/2012 2:06:38 AM
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Reed Loden <reed@reedloden.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 20:03:18 -0500
> Majken Connor <majken@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well I had data. According to you it was the wrong data. So let's get the
> > right data.
>
> Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I don't see any actual data
> presented by you in this thread. Would you please show me where this
> data is located so I may take a look at it? Thanks.
>
> > Meanwhile, if people weren't submitting their full feeds, and
> > planet policy is to have the full feed then IMO the planet team failed
> the
> > system they want by not informing people they could also submit their
> full
> > feed. You're arguing for something that hasn't existed in practice.
>
> I think you misunderstand the current Planet policy. The policy is that
> Mozillians are welcome to use whatever feed URL they like for their
> addition, but we encourage people to use a full blog feed URL. However,
> again, the final decision rests with the Mozillian requesting to be
> added. Based on my reading of addition requests over the past years,
> I'd say that we do a pretty good job at informing people they are
> welcome to use their full feed, especially if they are unsure of what
> feed URL to provide.
>
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Planet_Mozilla#Being_added_to_Planet_Mozilla
> lists the steps needed to get a blog added to Planet.
>
> ~reed
>

Reed - it's all replies to things that have been said here already. Asa
said about 90% of people don't use their full feed. He (and others) have
also expressed the preference for people to use their full feeds.


But regarding others' postings about why talk about changing planet
altogether. Well I think it's because it's a simpler solution, that doesn't
take sides.  However I'm realizing that sides really do need to be
addressed. We can't fix people's hurt by making change with a wide net and
calling the problem fixed, because the real problem isn't that Gerv posted
his post. The problem is that the current policy allowed it. The current
policy doesn't even allow for examination of whether or not it was
appropriate since the current policy is anything goes.

IMO where Gerv's post crossed the line into discrimination is that it
wasn't an expression of opinion, it was a call to action. I think Gerv's
views shouldn't be the topic of this discussion, which is why I have been
advocating for a larger solution. I think the post was inappropriate and it
was Gerv's mistake and Mozilla's responsibility to correct. I think if I
posted lewd pictures of myself to my blog it would also be Mozilla's
responsibility to correct this as well...or I can post them if you're all
cool with that, I'm curious how many people would defend my right to do so
or if this would be a clearer case to consider.

A free for all policy is not acceptable, and the only reason it has worked
so far is because people take it upon themselves to be respectful to each
other. When people are accidentally disrespectful to each other, it should
be fixed, not defended.
0
Majken
3/10/2012 2:29:34 AM
On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 21:29:34 -0500
Majken Connor <majken@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think if I posted lewd pictures of myself to my blog it would also be Mozilla's
> responsibility to correct this as well...or I can post them if you're all
> cool with that, I'm curious how many people would defend my right to do so
> or if this would be a clearer case to consider.

Are these lewd pictures of a pornographic nature? If so, that would
be a violation of (U.S.) laws, which would fall under our (stated)
policy[1] of removing blogs due to illegal activities.

Even if they aren't pornographic, the Planet team "reserves the right
to remove blogs (temporarily or permanently) for various reasons".
Generally, this is only for spam or the like, but the list of reasons
is left open for the "unknown"/"special" cases that may come up.

~reed

[1]
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Planet_Mozilla#Being_removed_from_Planet_Mozilla
0
Reed
3/10/2012 2:42:34 AM
On 3/8/12 6:02 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> I would like to think that we can all be trusted to not rules-lawyer a
> policy stated in nonspecific terms, and that actual enforcement of this
> ban will not be required (but if it ever does come up, I would support
> sanctions up to and including permanent removal from Planet, depending
> on how egregious the violation is and how often it is repeated).

This seems on the right track to me, and matches some of the other 
conduct policies I found though Googling.

The community is never going to agree on everything. But putting some 
boundaries around things that are always unacceptable (e.g. sexual 
harassment) and things that should be avoided or treated carefully (e.g. 
politics) should be possible, and help set the tone and expectations. At 
a minimum, I assume there are off-the-shelf HR policies that would make 
a fine starting point.

Here's a few of the community policies I've stumbled across:

http://investor.google.com/corporate/code-of-conduct.html

http://my.opera.com/community/blogs/corp-policy/

http://www.ibm.com/blogs/zz/en/guidelines.html


Also of potential interest:

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/legal/intel-social-media-guidelines.html
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/terms-of-use/
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/lessons_learnedcisco_updates_policy_on_employee_blogging/

Justin
0
Justin
3/10/2012 4:03:30 AM
On 3/9/12 11:07 AM, Taras Glek wrote:

> I support this proposal. The current notion that planet.mozilla.org is a
> collection of free speech that doesn't have obvious connections to the
> Mozilla mission is entirely non-obvious. I know quite a few people who
> would benefit from following planet, but avoid it because of the
> terrible signal/noise ratio.
>
> I would be more comfortable posting non-Mozilla related items if I knew
> that they would go onto a separate aggregator.

Some questions, I suppose more for the people who had very strong 
reactions to Gerv's post...

1) Would folks' reactions have been different if it had been more widely 
known that PMO content was unrestricted? It seems to me the objections 
were more about the content, than a violation of a wrongly-assumed policy.

2) Would a segregating "unrestricted" content to some other place have 
avoided the problem? If someone posted violent threats or racial slurs 
to such a location, seems like that would still be pretty serious. If 
someone posted borderline-offensive content to there, wouldn't the 
reaction be similar to what we have today?

I actually rather like the idea of a "Planet Mozillians" -- even if it's 
just a rebranding of the current PMO, because it sounds like it's more 
about the people and community. But I also don't think (for the above 
reasons) that it helps with the current issue that has people upset, and 
so we probably shouldn't conflate the two.

Justin
0
Justin
3/10/2012 4:26:49 AM
On 2012-03-09 8:03 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
>Here's a few of the community policies I've stumbled across:
>
> http://investor.google.com/corporate/code-of-conduct.html
> http://my.opera.com/community/blogs/corp-policy/
> http://www.ibm.com/blogs/zz/en/guidelines.html

Also perhaps worth pointing out:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policy (Christie 
Koehler's post had several more, I particularly liked this one)

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BanOnPolitics

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/index.php?title=Conference_anti-harassment_policy 
(has a lot of conference-specific material)
0
Zack
3/10/2012 4:48:28 AM
On 3/9/12 6:01 PM, Reed Loden wrote:

>> Meanwhile, if people weren't submitting their full feeds, and
>> planet policy is to have the full feed then IMO the planet team failed the
>> system they want by not informing people they could also submit their full
>> feed. You're arguing for something that hasn't existed in practice.
>
> I think you misunderstand the current Planet policy. The policy is that
> Mozillians are welcome to use whatever feed URL they like for their
> addition, but we encourage people to use a full blog feed URL. However,
> again, the final decision rests with the Mozillian requesting to be
> added.

As a single data point: my Planet feed is only for tagged posts, but I 
did that intentionally so I would have the option to not post things to 
Planet.

Of my 105 posts, I've only left the tag off twice, I think by accident:

http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/01/30/packing-efficiency/
http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2008/10/13/image-manipulations/

.....oh, and it didn't matter because despite my remembered intentions 
it's _actually_ my full feed that's syndicated on PMO. >_< Guess I'll be 
filing a bug!

Justin
0
Justin
3/10/2012 5:08:49 AM
On 3/9/2012 8:03 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
> On 3/8/12 6:02 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
>> I would like to think that we can all be trusted to not rules-lawyer a
>> policy stated in nonspecific terms, and that actual enforcement of this
>> ban will not be required (but if it ever does come up, I would support
>> sanctions up to and including permanent removal from Planet, depending
>> on how egregious the violation is and how often it is repeated).
>
> This seems on the right track to me, and matches some of the other
> conduct policies I found though Googling.
>
> The community is never going to agree on everything. But putting some
> boundaries around things that are always unacceptable (e.g. sexual
> harassment) and things that should be avoided or treated carefully (e.g.
> politics) should be possible, and help set the tone and expectations. At
> a minimum, I assume there are off-the-shelf HR policies that would make
> a fine starting point.

Then do it for all of Mozilla and not single out one channel, Planet 
Mozilla, which has a 5 year history of policy that forbids that kind of 
content enforcement. I refuse to accept that Planet cannot have a post 
on religion but our email and newsgroups are littered with religious 
content.

- A
0
Asa
3/10/2012 5:14:33 AM
On 3/9/2012 5:03 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
> Well I had data. According to you it was the wrong data. So let's get the
> right data. Meanwhile, if people weren't submitting their full feeds, and
> planet policy is to have the full feed

Planet policy is to let contributors decide.

> then IMO the planet team failed the system they want by not informing
> people they could also submit their full feed. You're arguing for
> something that hasn't existed in practice.

No, that's incorrect. Lots of people had contributed self-censored feeds 
back in the day when one person ran Planet with arbitrary editorial 
rules and before we created a Mozilla Module with a real authority and 
policy.

We have not done as much as I would like to revisit all of the 
first-generation feeds and ask their authors if they would like to offer 
a full content feed and we have not done as much as I would like to 
encourage new contributors to at least consider whether or not they 
would like to syndicate just their Mozilla content or all content.

Nevertheless, we have about half of the people who have come on to 
Planet since the new module who are interested in syndicating their full 
blog and not just a sub-section of their blog. For some of those people, 
their whole blog is Mozilla-related today, but might change at some 
point. For some of those people, they syndicate not-Mozilla work related 
content today infrequently. For some people they syndicate non-Mozilla 
content regularly.

It is my hope that more people will syndicate more "personal" content 
over time and that we become more like the amazing Planet Gnome (please 
do go check that out. Commenting on this issue without seeing how 
amazing it can be when a community shares more than just work seems like 
giving the issue short shrift.)

> More importantly this is not a decision that should be made based on what
> people enjoy (lots of people enjoy old Firefox features and not uprading)
> but on what makes sense and what works. I would appreciate more discussion
> along the lines of how it works if you're defending using planet for this
> purpose. You haven't said why planet is a better tool than others for this
> goal. You haven't taken into account the repercussions of the exponential
> increase in posts to planet if everyone posts their full feed, and if
> everyone in the Mozilla community gets to have their full blog syndicated
> on planet.

Actually, the Planet module team have taken into account how this has 
changed as the number of contributors grows. I think it's even more 
important as we grow to numbers where it's really easy to have no idea 
about others working on the project. When we were a couple dozen regular 
contributors, we all knew each other quite well -- inside and outside of 
work. Today at almost 600 Planet contributors and probably 1,000 Mozilla 
contributors, that's much less likely and Planet needs do do even more 
to facilitate community connections around our community, including 
personal connections.

> We have about 250 people in the reps program alone (going off of the people
> who have completed their ReMo profile on the wiki
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/ReMo/People) then there are about, 700 employees,
> there is a little bit of overlap so 950 gives us a good number since this
> doesn't represent the whole community, nor regular team posts like meeting
> notes. Let's assume they average 1 post a week. That's already 135 posts a
> day. You could read that in an hour if you read daily at a rate of 2 posts
> a minute, though that doesn't include time for longer posts, videos,
> commenting, reading links contained in the blogs. This is just to get a
> ballpark of the magnitude we're talking about. Obviously we'd need to do
> some real counting, but I think if planet is working the way you want it
> to, this is a good estimate.

Planet is under 600 feeds today. I'd like to see that increase to about 
1,000 which is the number of people I think are regularly active on the 
project.

No one that I know reads every post. People read the summaries and if it 
sounds interesting, they dive deeper. I think a great planet can have 
content that is interesting to most everyone else on the project and 
that content, the parts relevant to each reader, can be digestible in 
about an hour.

But I don't think that should be the topic of discussion here. The topic 
here is not how many posts we should have a Planet. The topic here is 
whether or not the community is going to convince Mitchell to overrule 
the Planet Module Owner and force a change of policy.

- A
0
Asa
3/10/2012 5:29:57 AM
On 3/9/2012 5:43 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Asa Dotzler <asa@mozilla.org> wrote:
>>
>> One thing that I fear isn't clear in this discussion is that Planet is an
>> official Mozilla Module. It has an Owner and a set of Peers. Those people
>> are responsible for the Planet roadmap, reviewing changes to Planet, and all
>> Planet policies. The Planet Module Owner is the ultimate say in what happens
>> with the Planet Module -- just like all of the Owned code modules in
>> Mozilla's HG repo.
>>
>> So, we're not dealing with a popular vote here -- just as we wouldn't put
>> the decisions and policies of the GFX Module Owner up for a popular vote.
>>
>> What this is, as I see it, is an attempt by some in the community to
>> overrule the Planet Module Owner, to force a change to the Planet policy. In
>> the code world that would be the equivalent of a handful of contributors
>> challenging the decision making of the GFX Module Owner, and when those
>> contributors didn't get satisfaction, taking it to Brendan with the hope
>> that Brendan would overrule the GFX Module Owner.
>>
>> I just want that to be clear because it has real implications for the
>> governance of the project. This project has very rarely escalated to Brendan
>> to see the plans, work, or policy of a code Module Owner overruled.  That's
>> what's happening right now.
>
> That sounds like an accurate description to me, except for the "has
> real implications for the governance of the project" part.
> http://www.mozilla.org/about/roles.html is relevant here:
>
> "The ultimate decision-maker(s) are trusted members of the community
> who have the final say in the case of disputes. This is a model
> followed by many successful open source projects, although most of
> those communities only have one person in this role, and they are
> sometimes called the "benevolent dictator". Mozilla has evolved to
> have two people in this role - Brendan Eich has the final say in any
> technical dispute and Mitchell Baker has the final say in any
> non-technical dispute. This has been the case since 1998 for Brendan
> and 1999 for Mitchell."
>
> It sounds to me like Mitchell has the final call on this matter, and
> given how controversial this matter is, she will have to make that
> final call.

Absolutely correct. Where Brendan is the final say in code questions, 
Mitchell is for non-code questions. The only reason I focused on the 
code side was that I wanted all of the programmers in this thread to 
understand what was going on here and I figured they could relate to 
code modules and Brendan more easily than they could to policy modules 
and Mitchell.

I still assert that this has real implications for the governance of the 
project and I want people to realize that escalation to this "ask 
Mitchell or Brendan to override a Module Owner" is "kind of a big deal".

- A
0
Asa
3/10/2012 5:36:54 AM
On 3/9/2012 5:53 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
> Instead of talking about Planet Mozilla policy right now, I'd suggest we
> should be doing the following:
>
> 1) Create a Mozillian Code Of Conduct; including expectations,
> boundaries, caution areas -- part of the current problem is that there
> are widely varying ideas of what's appropriate in the community and what
> current PMO policy is. I vaguely remember Myk starting something along
> these lines years ago (bug 364003?), but I'm not sure what became of it.
> More recently there's been a general trend of improving the tone of
> communication -- the efforts of dmose, Stormy, and Mozilla Conductors
> all come to mind.
>
> 2) Begin a discussion of potential responses for when Mozillians violate
> #1, so there are some existing suggestions or shared understanding of
> who can do what and when (instead of winging things in the
> heat/confusion of the moment).
>
> 3) Determine some final response for the current issue. A thing
> happened, a lot of people are upset, but eventually we need to find
> closure and move on (it will be impossible to satisfy everyone). The PMO
> Module Owners have already posted their response. I presume that given
> the scale of the ongoing debate we're at
> http://www.mozilla.org/about/roles.html#ultimate-decision-makers and
> hence Mitchell's starting of this thread?
>
> 4) After a cooling-off period (a month from now?), re-open discussion on
> Planet Mozilla policy changes. We know it's broken, but everyone is in
> defensive/reactive-mode right now. Let's be sure there's a clear
> separation between general PMO improvements and the content that's the
> immediate issue.
>
> Justin

+1

- A

0
Asa
3/10/2012 5:39:17 AM
On 3/9/2012 6:29 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
> A free for all policy is not acceptable, and the only reason it has worked
> so far is because people take it upon themselves to be respectful to each
> other. When people are accidentally disrespectful to each other, it should
> be fixed, not defended.

I think you're right and wrong here. Yes, the reason it's worked with 
many tens of thousands of posts -- we've only seem serious escalation 
around this one single post (and minor concerns around less than half a 
dozen others,) is because the overwhelming majority of times that people 
post (99.9999% of the time) they are considerate of what they post and 
how it will be received.  That's a pretty amazing track record, IMO.

When the system doesn't "just work" (0.0001% of the time) the answer is 
not to transform the whole system into something completely different, 
but to correct that one rare occurrence. That was done here. Gerv, upon 
realizing what kind of a commotion he caused, pulled his post.

That's the system working -- pretty well IMO. Saying that's not good 
enough, and re-defining the entire module to prevent the next one in 
100,000 posts from upsetting some people, seems like the classic 
"throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

- A
0
Asa
3/10/2012 5:48:06 AM
On 3/9/12 9:14 PM, Asa Dotzler wrote:

>> The community is never going to agree on everything. But putting some
>> boundaries around things that are always unacceptable (e.g. sexual
>> harassment) and things that should be avoided or treated carefully (e.g.
>> politics) should be possible, and help set the tone and expectations. At
>> a minimum, I assume there are off-the-shelf HR policies that would make
>> a fine starting point.
>
> Then do it for all of Mozilla and not single out one channel, Planet
> Mozilla, which has a 5 year history of policy that forbids that kind of
> content enforcement. I refuse to accept that Planet cannot have a post
> on religion but our email and newsgroups are littered with religious
> content.

Yes, any code of conduct should be universal.

I personally believe that any such code should be extremely liberal. If 
someone wants to create a blog, newsgroup, email list or whatever for 
$RELIGION Mozillians, why not?

I don't suggest setting up an enforcement regime for micromanaging 
content. Just a set of guidelines for what the community broadly agrees 
is unacceptable and what areas one should be cautious in. Ideally this 
should be no more burdensome than the status quo -- about once every 
year or so there will be some contentious topic, but instead of arguing 
with no shared understandings, frameworks, or policies we'll have 
something to help guide discussion and debate.

Maybe that means a policy like Mitchell's original post suggested (but 
not just for Planet). Maybe we take the current Planet policy and make 
that universal. Maybe something else.

Justin
0
Justin
3/10/2012 7:53:21 AM
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Justin Dolske <dolske@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 3/9/12 9:14 PM, Asa Dotzler wrote:
>>
>> Then do it for all of Mozilla and not single out one channel, Planet
>> Mozilla, which has a 5 year history of policy that forbids that kind of
>> content enforcement. I refuse to accept that Planet cannot have a post
>> on religion but our email and newsgroups are littered with religious
>> content.
>
> Yes, any code of conduct should be universal.

Absolutely.  It's long since time we did this and I believe it will
prove be an important point in the evolution our project and
community.

~ d
0
Deb
3/10/2012 11:00:09 AM
On Friday, March 9, 2012 9:36:54 PM UTC-8, Asa Dotzler wrote:
> I just want that to be clear because it has real implications for the 
> governance of the project. This project has very rarely escalated to 
> Brendan to see the plans, work, or policy of a code Module Owner 
> overruled.  That's what's happening right now.

I think you've made this point very clear.

> I still assert that this has real implications for the governance of the 
> project and I want people to realize that escalation to this "ask 
> Mitchell or Brendan to override a Module Owner" is "kind of a big deal".

This is good because it means our process for dealing with issues is working. 

A group of people had issues with the governance on Planet Mozilla that was not satisfactorily addressed by Planet owners and so the issue has been escalated up the chain of authority. 

This may be "kind of a big deal" because it doesn't happen that often, but I want to clarify that it means our processes are working and that folks have a process for redress when module owners aren't being sufficiently responsive.

-Ck

0
Christie
3/10/2012 3:37:25 PM
On Friday, March 9, 2012 9:36:54 PM UTC-8, Asa Dotzler wrote:
> I just want that to be clear because it has real implications for the 
> governance of the project. This project has very rarely escalated to 
> Brendan to see the plans, work, or policy of a code Module Owner 
> overruled.  That's what's happening right now.

I think you've made this point very clear.

> I still assert that this has real implications for the governance of the 
> project and I want people to realize that escalation to this "ask 
> Mitchell or Brendan to override a Module Owner" is "kind of a big deal".

This is good because it means our process for dealing with issues is working. 

A group of people had issues with the governance on Planet Mozilla that was not satisfactorily addressed by Planet owners and so the issue has been escalated up the chain of authority. 

This may be "kind of a big deal" because it doesn't happen that often, but I want to clarify that it means our processes are working and that folks have a process for redress when module owners aren't being sufficiently responsive.

-Ck

0
Christie
3/10/2012 3:37:25 PM
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Christie Koehler
<christiekoehler@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is good because it means our process for dealing with issues is working.
>
> A group of people had issues with the governance on Planet Mozilla that was not satisfactorily addressed by Planet owners and so the issue has been escalated up the chain of authority.
>
> This may be "kind of a big deal" because it doesn't happen that often, but I want to clarify that it means our processes are working and that folks have a process for redress when module owners aren't being sufficiently responsive.

Yep.  The system is working as designed.

~ d
0
Deb
3/10/2012 4:38:24 PM
On 03/10/2012 03:00 AM, Deb Richardson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Justin Dolske<dolske@mozilla.com>  wrote:
>> On 3/9/12 9:14 PM, Asa Dotzler wrote:
>>>
>>> Then do it for all of Mozilla and not single out one channel, Planet
>>> Mozilla, which has a 5 year history of policy that forbids that kind of
>>> content enforcement. I refuse to accept that Planet cannot have a post
>>> on religion but our email and newsgroups are littered with religious
>>> content.
>>
>> Yes, any code of conduct should be universal.
>
> Absolutely.  It's long since time we did this and I believe it will
> prove be an important point in the evolution our project and
> community.

I concur.

zw

0
Zack
3/10/2012 6:22:57 PM
I think all the talk here about this being the rare exception not only
shows that people are generally respectful when they post but also
respectful when they read. Whatever long term solution that's put in
place should support both of those behaviours.

But in this particular case i don't think anyone agrees that people
shouldn't be hurt or upset. So the problem right now is not whether
Gerv violated the policy but whether mozilla thinks this is the kind
of content they want to see planet used for. Right now the answer from
Asa makes it sound like yes.

On 3/10/12, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
> On 03/10/2012 03:00 AM, Deb Richardson wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Justin Dolske<dolske@mozilla.com>  wrote:
>>> On 3/9/12 9:14 PM, Asa Dotzler wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Then do it for all of Mozilla and not single out one channel, Planet
>>>> Mozilla, which has a 5 year history of policy that forbids that kind of
>>>> content enforcement. I refuse to accept that Planet cannot have a post
>>>> on religion but our email and newsgroups are littered with religious
>>>> content.
>>>
>>> Yes, any code of conduct should be universal.
>>
>> Absolutely.  It's long since time we did this and I believe it will
>> prove be an important point in the evolution our project and
>> community.
>
> I concur.
>
> zw
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
0
Majken
3/10/2012 7:11:30 PM
On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:11 PM, Majken Connor wrote:

> I think all the talk here about this being the rare exception not only
> shows that people are generally respectful when they post but also
> respectful when they read. Whatever long term solution that's put in
> place should support both of those behaviours.
>=20
> But in this particular case i don't think anyone agrees that people
> shouldn't be hurt or upset. So the problem right now is not whether
> Gerv violated the policy but whether mozilla thinks this is the kind
> of content they want to see planet used for. Right now the answer from
> Asa makes it sound like yes.

The bigger question is the definition of "exclusionary".  Like I've =
asked several times (and not one person has dare replied), what groups =
are ok to exclude and what aren't?  Is WoMoz exclusionary towards those =
from a more male dominated culture (common in many parts of the globe, =
lets remember Mozilla is a global community)?  Would Dudezilla (If this =
exists, I hope it's a game or a beard API) be exclusionary towards =
women?  Would a Christzilla (I don't know if that exists or not, just =
for example sake) with perhaps a shared belief against gay marriage be =
exclusionary to LGBT folks?  Is any LGBT group be exclusionary to =
Christians with strong beliefs?  You could go beyond =
gender/sexuality/religion to politics as well (Israel/Palestine, for =
example).  They all trigger strong beliefs among people.

The problem with groups is they are generally exclusionary by the very =
nature of being created to fix the inverse exclusion.  So who can be =
excluded?  Do we just poll .governance? There's been some vague =
suggestions around that suggestion: simple majority rules, winner gets =
to operate under the mozilla banner.

I believe Asa's suggestion (I don't want to put words in his mouth), is =
has been the defacto policy for Mozilla as a community for as long as I =
can remember is that all belief systems and groups are tolerated and may =
co-exist.  We're clearly leaning towards a mechanism to to favor one vs. =
the other.  The question is explicitly: who? and to a lesser degree, who =
decides?

The other question is how do you trigger and enforce that?  Is any =
reference to them forbidden?  Is their organization in itself grounds =
for banishment from the community (that's pretty draconian)?  Can they =
exist but just not promote themselves or beliefs to anyone who is not =
explicitly part of their group (meaning no group of this nature can have =
a mozilla linked blog, but they can have a mailing list provided =
individuals opt in to join)?

I suspect there's a reason nobody has given a specific definition or =
more importantly and explicit list.  Generally speaking larger companies =
limit these groups to singular offices, regions, countries so that they =
don't cross over.  To reuse my first example and avoid reusing the =
LGBT/Christian theme, WoMoz North America may fly, but WoMoz global may =
not work out well due to places like the Saudi regional office among =
some others.  Mozilla as a community isn't structured in this fashion as =
it's not modeled after a traditional company.  Most things are global in =
nature.  It's not the exception, it's the rule. Many people have never =
even met in person when you look at the global community.  This model =
isn't going to work without imposing hardship towards many groups.  I =
think the majority would agree something different is needed as Mozilla =
is a different community than Acme International Inc.

-R=
0
Robert
3/10/2012 7:41:42 PM
On 3/10/2012 7:37 AM, Christie Koehler wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2012 9:36:54 PM UTC-8, Asa Dotzler wrote:
>> I just want that to be clear because it has real implications for the
>> governance of the project. This project has very rarely escalated to
>> Brendan to see the plans, work, or policy of a code Module Owner
>> overruled.  That's what's happening right now.
>
> I think you've made this point very clear.
>
>> I still assert that this has real implications for the governance of the
>> project and I want people to realize that escalation to this "ask
>> Mitchell or Brendan to override a Module Owner" is "kind of a big deal".
>
> This is good because it means our process for dealing with issues is working.
>
> A group of people had issues with the governance on Planet Mozilla that was not satisfactorily addressed by Planet owners and so the issue has been escalated up the chain of authority.
>
> This may be "kind of a big deal" because it doesn't happen that often, but I want to clarify that it means our processes are working and that folks have a process for redress when module owners aren't being sufficiently responsive.
>
> -Ck

Christie, that may be obvious to you and a few others who were involved 
in a series of private emails over the last several days but for the 
overwhelming majority of the Mozilla project contributors and the Planet 
Mozilla syndicators, that may not have been at all clear. That is why I 
posted this description of the situation.

- A

0
Asa
3/10/2012 8:58:18 PM
On 3/10/2012 7:37 AM, Christie Koehler wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2012 9:36:54 PM UTC-8, Asa Dotzler wrote:
>> I just want that to be clear because it has real implications for the
>> governance of the project. This project has very rarely escalated to
>> Brendan to see the plans, work, or policy of a code Module Owner
>> overruled.  That's what's happening right now.
>
> I think you've made this point very clear.
>
>> I still assert that this has real implications for the governance of the
>> project and I want people to realize that escalation to this "ask
>> Mitchell or Brendan to override a Module Owner" is "kind of a big deal".
>
> This is good because it means our process for dealing with issues is working.
>
> A group of people had issues with the governance on Planet Mozilla that was not satisfactorily addressed by Planet owners and so the issue has been escalated up the chain of authority.
>
> This may be "kind of a big deal" because it doesn't happen that often, but I want to clarify that it means our processes are working and that folks have a process for redress when module owners aren't being sufficiently responsive.
>
> -Ck

Christie, that may be obvious to you and a few others who were involved 
in a series of private emails over the last several days but for the 
overwhelming majority of the Mozilla project contributors and the Planet 
Mozilla syndicators, that may not have been at all clear. That is why I 
posted this description of the situation.

- A

0
Asa
3/10/2012 8:58:18 PM
On 3/10/2012 11:11 AM, Majken Connor wrote:

> But in this particular case i don't think anyone agrees that people
> shouldn't be hurt or upset. So the problem right now is not whether
> Gerv violated the policy but whether mozilla thinks this is the kind
> of content they want to see planet used for. Right now the answer from
> Asa makes it sound like yes.

I think that's a terribly unfair characterization of my view, Lucy. I 
couldn't imagine a more hurtful insult coming from you.

What I want is for the Mozilla community -- especially those who post to 
Planet Mozilla, to be considerate of their fellow Mozillians and avoid 
saying or posting hurtful things. What I don't want is an editorial 
regime imposed that puts me in a position of regularly policing content.

To suggest that I want Mozillians posting hurtful content to Planet or 
that I think Gerv's content wasn't the cause of people being hurt or 
upset is the last thing I expected to hear from you and I'm really sad 
to see you suggesting that.

- A
0
Asa
3/10/2012 9:10:22 PM
On 3/10/2012 8:38 AM, Deb Richardson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Christie Koehler
> <christiekoehler@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is good because it means our process for dealing with issues is working.
>>
>> A group of people had issues with the governance on Planet Mozilla that was not satisfactorily addressed by Planet owners and so the issue has been escalated up the chain of authority.
>>
>> This may be "kind of a big deal" because it doesn't happen that often, but I want to clarify that it means our processes are working and that folks have a process for redress when module owners aren't being sufficiently responsive.
>
> Yep.  The system is working as designed.
>
> ~ d
>

Yes it is. I only hope that people realize there is a system here.

- A
0
Asa
3/10/2012 9:11:09 PM
On 2012-03-09 17:53, Justin Dolske wrote:
> Instead of talking about Planet Mozilla policy right now, I'd suggest 
> we should be doing the following:
>
> 1) Create a Mozillian Code Of Conduct; including expectations, 
> boundaries, caution areas -- part of the current problem is that there 
> are widely varying ideas of what's appropriate in the community and 
> what current PMO policy is. I vaguely remember Myk starting something 
> along these lines years ago (bug 364003?), but I'm not sure what 
> became of it.
I ended up implementing a set of improvements to Mozilla Forum Etiquette 
<http://www.mozilla.org/about/forums/etiquette.html>.

-myk

0
Myk
3/12/2012 2:56:45 AM
On 09/03/12 19:29, jpreed@gmail.com wrote:
> Apologies Gerv.

No problem :-) No offence taken.

> Lots of words exchanged with lots of people on this in the past 56
> hours. :-)
> 
> I think my memory is keying off of you saying something about having
> recently moved to a new Wordpress installation, and changes to the
> way your feed was syndicated due to that? I may have inferred that to
> mean "I didn't think this would get syndicated to Planet, but it did"
> and thus it being a mistake in that regard, not in regards to
> breaking any content policy.

What I said was that a few months ago I moved from MozillaZine to a new
self-hosted Wordpress installation. MozillaZine's MT installation only,
as far as I could ever discover (BICBW), provided a single feed, which
was fine because that's what Planet accepted. Once I moved, it did not
even cross my mind that I would want to change the feed sent to Planet
from "everything" to anything else. I am a supporter of the current
Planet policy, and enjoy reading a diverse range of views on many
topics, including those with which I strongly disagree.

However, I realised last week that, due to the shift to Wordpress, it's
now technically possible to limit my feed, should Planet's policy or my
own opinion of what to send change.

I hope that clears up what I said :-)

Gerv
0
Gervase
3/12/2012 12:08:36 PM
On 10/03/12 15:37, Christie Koehler wrote:
> This is good because it means our process for dealing with issues is
> working.
> 
> A group of people had issues with the governance on Planet Mozilla
> that was not satisfactorily addressed by Planet owners and so the
> issue has been escalated up the chain of authority.
> 
> This may be "kind of a big deal" because it doesn't happen that
> often, but I want to clarify that it means our processes are working
> and that folks have a process for redress when module owners aren't
> being sufficiently responsive.

If one were to replace "aren't being sufficiently responsive" with "have
responded in a way which is unsatisfactory to us", then a hearty +1 to
all that.

(I think it's a little unfair to claim the Planet module owners have not
been "sufficiently responsive"; I suspect they have spent a large amount
of their time in the last 7 days responding to people on this issue. It
is more accurate to say that their response has not satisfied the group
of people you are talking about.)

Gerv
0
Gervase
3/12/2012 12:19:03 PM
On 10/03/12 02:29, Majken Connor wrote:
> IMO where Gerv's post crossed the line into discrimination is that it
> wasn't an expression of opinion, it was a call to action.

Again, without wanting to have a debate again on the specific issue: is
this distinction between "opinion" and "call to action" one which can be
reasonably and fairly maintained?

Surely being allowed to argue for change (or for the status quo) based
on one's opinions is a fundamental part of being able to hold that opinion?

(The reason this is on-topic for this discussion is that it speaks to
the question as to whether it's appropriate to try and write such a
distinction into any code of conduct document.)

Gerv
0
Gervase
3/12/2012 12:36:42 PM
On 10.03.2012 06:14, Asa Dotzler wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 8:03 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
>> On 3/8/12 6:02 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to think that we can all be trusted to not rules-lawyer a
>>> policy stated in nonspecific terms, and that actual enforcement of this
>>> ban will not be required (but if it ever does come up, I would support
>>> sanctions up to and including permanent removal from Planet, depending
>>> on how egregious the violation is and how often it is repeated).
>>
>> This seems on the right track to me, and matches some of the other
>> conduct policies I found though Googling.
>>
>> The community is never going to agree on everything. But putting some
>> boundaries around things that are always unacceptable (e.g. sexual
>> harassment) and things that should be avoided or treated carefully (e.g.
>> politics) should be possible, and help set the tone and expectations. At
>> a minimum, I assume there are off-the-shelf HR policies that would make
>> a fine starting point.
>
> Then do it for all of Mozilla and not single out one channel, Planet
> Mozilla, which has a 5 year history of policy that forbids that kind of
> content enforcement. I refuse to accept that Planet cannot have a post
> on religion but our email and newsgroups are littered with religious
> content.

Except that Gerv's post wasn't criticized for religious but homophobic 
content, as far as I've seen.
0
Dao
3/12/2012 12:56:06 PM
On 12.03.2012 13:36, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 10/03/12 02:29, Majken Connor wrote:
>> IMO where Gerv's post crossed the line into discrimination is that it
>> wasn't an expression of opinion, it was a call to action.
>
> Again, without wanting to have a debate again on the specific issue: is
> this distinction between "opinion" and "call to action" one which can be
> reasonably and fairly maintained?

I don't think so, and I don't think the distinction makes sense. If the 
opinion is homophobic, a post merely trying to justify that opinion 
would be just as disgraceful.
0
Dao
3/12/2012 1:28:42 PM
On 10.03.2012 20:41, Robert Accettura wrote:
> The bigger question is the definition of "exclusionary".  Like I've asked several times (and not one person has dare replied), what groups are ok to exclude and what aren't?  Is WoMoz exclusionary towards those from a more male dominated culture (common in many parts of the globe, lets remember Mozilla is a global community)?

(Hm, so you think US society isn't male dominated?)

As far as I remember WoMoz doesn't exclude men, but I may be wrong. It 
doesn't really matter. "Exclusionary" is ambiguous and the way you're 
using it seems to be besides the point. Two people talking privately is 
exclusionary to others. So what? As for WoMoz, I think what's relevant 
is that it doesn't pursue a discriminatory agenda.

> Would Dudezilla (If this exists, I hope it's a game or a beard API) be exclusionary towards women?

For women there may be a need for a safe place within a patriarchic 
environment. Is the same true for men?

> Would a Christzilla (I don't know if that exists or not, just for example sake) with perhaps a shared belief against gay marriage be exclusionary to LGBT folks?

Presumably Christzilla would be open to people who don't share that 
belief. A ConsGayMarriageZilla would indeed be problematic, imho.

> Is any LGBT group be exclusionary to Christians with strong beliefs?

I'd be surprised if a LGBT group explicitly excluded Christians. What 
those Christians say and do matters, though. It's ok to ban 
discrimination -- and this isn't specific to LGBT groups, which is why 
we're having this discussion.
0
Dao
3/12/2012 2:06:05 PM
Folks

I see a set of issues that have come up.  I'd like to sort them out and 
address them separately.  Here's the list so far.

1.  Mozilla communications forums as places for people to gather and get 
to know many facets of each other, not just work-related topics.

2.  "Anyone can say whatever they want"  ask "free speech."

3.  Suggestions that we should have some sort of code of conduct / 
philosophy of conflict.

4.  Questions of scope, accountability, enforcement, edge cases etc.

I'm going to start a thread on each of these.    I've got something 
written already for the first and third topics, the rest will follow.

mitchell
0
Mitchell
3/12/2012 3:23:30 PM
On 3/12/2012 5:56 AM, Dao wrote:
> Except that Gerv's post wasn't criticized for religious but homophobic
> content, as far as I've seen.

Gerv's post was "political" and probably motivated by "religious" but I 
don't think there's anything close to agreement that his comments were 
"homophobic".

I'll note that the four times I can recall controversy over something 
posted at planet, *every* one of them was about a religion post. This 
one feels a bit more political than religious, but knowing Gerv as well 
as I do, I think it's reasonable to call it both.

- A
0
Asa
3/12/2012 9:41:03 PM
On 12.03.2012 22:41, Asa Dotzler wrote:
> On 3/12/2012 5:56 AM, Dao wrote:
>> Except that Gerv's post wasn't criticized for religious but homophobic
>> content, as far as I've seen.
>
> Gerv's post was "political" and probably motivated by "religious" but I
> don't think there's anything close to agreement that his comments were
> "homophobic".

A petition can of course be political and homophobic at the same time. 
What the homophobia is motivated by is irrelevant.
0
Dao
3/12/2012 9:52:06 PM
On 3/12/2012 2:52 PM, Dao wrote:
> On 12.03.2012 22:41, Asa Dotzler wrote:
>> On 3/12/2012 5:56 AM, Dao wrote:
>>> Except that Gerv's post wasn't criticized for religious but homophobic
>>> content, as far as I've seen.
>>
>> Gerv's post was "political" and probably motivated by "religious" but I
>> don't think there's anything close to agreement that his comments were
>> "homophobic".
>
> A petition can of course be political and homophobic at the same time.
> What the homophobia is motivated by is irrelevant.

Sure it can. I don't think it was in this case. Maybe we have completely 
different definitions of homophobic though. Probably not worth 
continuing on this though.

- A
0
Asa
3/12/2012 10:06:34 PM
On 12.03.2012 23:06, Asa Dotzler wrote:
> On 3/12/2012 2:52 PM, Dao wrote:
>> On 12.03.2012 22:41, Asa Dotzler wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2012 5:56 AM, Dao wrote:
>>>> Except that Gerv's post wasn't criticized for religious but homophobic
>>>> content, as far as I've seen.
>>>
>>> Gerv's post was "political" and probably motivated by "religious" but I
>>> don't think there's anything close to agreement that his comments were
>>> "homophobic".
>>
>> A petition can of course be political and homophobic at the same time.
>> What the homophobia is motivated by is irrelevant.
>
> Sure it can. I don't think it was in this case. Maybe we have completely
> different definitions of homophobic though. Probably not worth
> continuing on this though.

What's your definition of homophobic? I think this is worth clearing up 
since knowing when you're dealing with discrimination is necessary for 
stopping it.
0
Dao
3/12/2012 10:20:09 PM
On 3/12/12 3:20 PM, Dao wrote:

>
> What's your definition of homophobic? I think this is worth clearing up
> since knowing when you're dealing with discrimination is necessary for
> stopping it.

Actually, I disagree very strongly with this assertion.  The issue here 
is not who agrees with whom over the characterization or label applied 
to a piece of content.

There are many topics of conversation where we can offend each other 
badly.

Mitchell

0
Mitchell
3/12/2012 10:42:12 PM
On 12.03.2012 23:42, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> On 3/12/12 3:20 PM, Dao wrote:
>> What's your definition of homophobic? I think this is worth clearing up
>> since knowing when you're dealing with discrimination is necessary for
>> stopping it.
>
> Actually, I disagree very strongly with this assertion. The issue here
> is not who agrees with whom over the characterization or label applied
> to a piece of content.

This may be off-topic for what you intended this thread to be, but in 
"The (Overdue) Need for Community Conduct Standards at Mozilla" Christie 
refers to http://citizencodeofconduct.org/ which lists "Refrain from 
demeaning, discriminatory or harassing behavior and speech." This is 
useless without some understanding of what discriminatory speech is.

You may of course dispute that we should have such a rule. I would like 
to clear up the above question no matter what, since I still want 
individuals to recognize and overtly disapprove discrimination.
0
Dao
3/12/2012 11:04:08 PM
On 3/12/2012 4:04 PM, Dao wrote:
> On 12.03.2012 23:42, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>> On 3/12/12 3:20 PM, Dao wrote:
>>> What's your definition of homophobic? I think this is worth clearing up
>>> since knowing when you're dealing with discrimination is necessary for
>>> stopping it.
>>
>> Actually, I disagree very strongly with this assertion. The issue here
>> is not who agrees with whom over the characterization or label applied
>> to a piece of content.
>
> This may be off-topic for what you intended this thread to be, but in
> "The (Overdue) Need for Community Conduct Standards at Mozilla" Christie
> refers to http://citizencodeofconduct.org/ which lists "Refrain from
> demeaning, discriminatory or harassing behavior and speech." This is
> useless without some understanding of what discriminatory speech is.
>
> You may of course dispute that we should have such a rule. I would like
> to clear up the above question no matter what, since I still want
> individuals to recognize and overtly disapprove discrimination.

I don't think it's a simple problem to solve. No two people, no two 
companies, no two governments agree on what classes are protected from 
discrimination, much less what constitutes discrimination against those 
classes. You're asking that we come to agreement on a definition that 
very may well be impossible -- or at the very least could not cover what 
many might believe to be discrimination. If it was a simple problem, 
we'd have solved it long ago.

- A
0
Asa
3/12/2012 11:23:34 PM
IOn 3/12/12 4:04 PM, Dao wrote:
> On 12.03.2012 23:42, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>> On 3/12/12 3:20 PM, Dao wrote:
>>> What's your definition of homophobic? I think this is worth clearing up
>>> since knowing when you're dealing with discrimination is necessary for
>>> stopping it.
>>
>> Actually, I disagree very strongly with this assertion. The issue here
>> is not who agrees with whom over the characterization or label applied
>> to a piece of content.
>
> This may be off-topic for what you intended this thread to be, but in
> "The (Overdue) Need for Community Conduct Standards at Mozilla" Christie
> refers to http://citizencodeofconduct.org/ which lists "Refrain from
> demeaning, discriminatory or harassing behavior and speech." This is
> useless without some understanding of what discriminatory speech is.
>
> You may of course dispute that we should have such a rule. I would like
> to clear up the above question no matter what, since I still want
> individuals to recognize and overtly disapprove discrimination.

Again I disagree, on several levels.

Mostly I disagree with your approach.  Your answer seems to bear on the 
question:  what would be different if we had a Code of Conduct.  It 
suggests that we would look at the words of that code and then fight 
tooth and nail over their exact meaning and whether something is 
"discriminatory" or not.   Whoever could win that battle would get 
content treated as they believed.

I see this as a legalistic and last resort approach.   Let's look at 
what happened here -- none of this was necessary.  The author realized 
the mistake and removed the content from Mozilla, without needing any 
determination of whether a particular label fits or not.

I'd prefer a more wholistic approach -- the content has nothing to do 
with Mozilla, it's disruptive and it's eating  hours of time.  I would 
hope that in most cases Mozillians would recognize the community 
agitation and the damage, and voluntarily change their behavior.  If 
they don't then we need to look at things closer.   Even then I prefer 
to avoid focusing on legalistic definitions if we can solve the problem 
without doing so.  To me the legal determinations of definitions are the 
floor, not the level we want to aim for.


Mitchell
0
Mitchell
3/12/2012 11:48:32 PM
On 3/12/12 4:48 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> I'd prefer a more wholistic approach -- the content has nothing to do
> with Mozilla, it's disruptive and it's eating hours of time. I would
> hope that in most cases Mozillians would recognize the community
> agitation and the damage, and voluntarily change their behavior.

I fully agree. Asserting that we need a process in which one side can 
strong-arm the other into submission based on precise legal definitions 
of labels is not a step forward it is declaring defeat.

It also represents a negativistic world view that neither I nor many 
others in the Mozilla community subscribe to.

I believe I concur with Mitchell that, based on the basic assumption 
that we *want* to work with each other and that we do *not* want to harm 
each other, a Code of Conduct would guide the process of productively 
working through disagreements together.

~F

0
Fred
3/13/2012 12:25:49 AM
On 13.03.2012 00:48, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> On 3/12/12 4:04 PM, Dao wrote:
>> This may be off-topic for what you intended this thread to be, but in
>> "The (Overdue) Need for Community Conduct Standards at Mozilla" Christie
>> refers to http://citizencodeofconduct.org/ which lists "Refrain from
>> demeaning, discriminatory or harassing behavior and speech." This is
>> useless without some understanding of what discriminatory speech is.
>>
>> You may of course dispute that we should have such a rule. I would like
>> to clear up the above question no matter what, since I still want
>> individuals to recognize and overtly disapprove discrimination.
>
> Again I disagree, on several levels.
>
> Mostly I disagree with your approach. Your answer seems to bear on the
> question: what would be different if we had a Code of Conduct. It
> suggests that we would look at the words of that code and then fight
> tooth and nail over their exact meaning and whether something is
> "discriminatory" or not. Whoever could win that battle would get content
> treated as they believed.
>
> I see this as a legalistic and last resort approach. Let's look at what
> happened here -- none of this was necessary. The author realized the
> mistake and removed the content from Mozilla, without needing any
> determination of whether a particular label fits or not.

This only happened because people determined individually that a 
particular label fits and decided to speak out against the post. Some 
perceived this as a tooth-and-nail fight. I think it was courageous and 
healthy behavior and would like to encourage it by raising awareness 
with or without a written code. Hence my attempt to compare views. 
Reaching agreement would be nice but isn't mandatory.

> I'd prefer a more wholistic approach -- the content has nothing to do
> with Mozilla, it's disruptive and it's eating hours of time. I would
> hope that in most cases Mozillians would recognize the community
> agitation and the damage, and voluntarily change their behavior.

What makes it disruptive, though? The fact that it has nothing to do 
with Mozilla may not be enough given people's continued desire to share 
personal stuff, be it on Planet or some other semi-public platform.
0
Dao
3/13/2012 1:00:43 AM
On 12/03/12 23:04, Dao wrote:
> This may be off-topic for what you intended this thread to be, but in
> "The (Overdue) Need for Community Conduct Standards at Mozilla" Christie
> refers to http://citizencodeofconduct.org/ which lists "Refrain from
> demeaning, discriminatory or harassing behavior and speech." This is
> useless without some understanding of what discriminatory speech is.
>
> You may of course dispute that we should have such a rule. I would like
> to clear up the above question no matter what, since I still want
> individuals to recognize and overtly disapprove discrimination.

I don't think you can clear up the question by asking Asa. This is 
precisely the issue with codes of conduct - someone, somewhere has to 
decide what speech is "demeaning, discriminatory or harassing", or 
whatever other words one chooses. If this is going to be a community 
code of conduct, then there needs to be at least some community 
consensus on what that means (consent of the governed, and all that). I 
fear this might be hard to reach except for cases which are unlikely to 
occur in practice.

Gerv
0
Gervase
3/13/2012 11:36:54 AM
On 2012-03-13, at 7:36 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:

> On 12/03/12 23:04, Dao wrote:
>> This may be off-topic for what you intended this thread to be, but in
>> "The (Overdue) Need for Community Conduct Standards at Mozilla" =
Christie
>> refers to http://citizencodeofconduct.org/ which lists "Refrain from
>> demeaning, discriminatory or harassing behavior and speech." This is
>> useless without some understanding of what discriminatory speech is.
>>=20
>> You may of course dispute that we should have such a rule. I would =
like
>> to clear up the above question no matter what, since I still want
>> individuals to recognize and overtly disapprove discrimination.
>=20
> I don't think you can clear up the question by asking Asa. This is =
precisely the issue with codes of conduct - someone, somewhere has to =
decide what speech is "demeaning, discriminatory or harassing", or =
whatever other words one chooses. If this is going to be a community =
code of conduct, then there needs to be at least some community =
consensus on what that means (consent of the governed, and all that). I =
fear this might be hard to reach except for cases which are unlikely to =
occur in practice.

Consent of the governed does not necessarily require a broad consensus =
on anything other than who is doing the governing.  It helps, but on =
divisive issues (such as what constitutes discriminatory speech) I don't =
think we'll reach a strong enough consensus, and we'll need to rely on =
strong and fair individuals to act in the best interests of Mozilla as a =
whole.  I don't expect those people to always be right, but it's more =
likely to get to better outcomes than only enforcing things that =
everyone agrees is a bad thing.

-- Mike=
0
Mike
3/13/2012 1:47:49 PM
On 3/13/12 9:47 AM, Mike Connor wrote:
> On 2012-03-13, at 7:36 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>> On 12/03/12 23:04, Dao wrote:
>>> This may be off-topic for what you intended this thread to be, but in
>>> "The (Overdue) Need for Community Conduct Standards at Mozilla" Christie
>>> refers to http://citizencodeofconduct.org/ which lists "Refrain from
>>> demeaning, discriminatory or harassing behavior and speech." This is
>>> useless without some understanding of what discriminatory speech is.
>>>
>>> You may of course dispute that we should have such a rule. I would like
>>> to clear up the above question no matter what, since I still want
>>> individuals to recognize and overtly disapprove discrimination.
>> I don't think you can clear up the question by asking Asa. This is precisely the issue with codes of conduct - someone, somewhere has to decide what speech is "demeaning, discriminatory or harassing", or whatever other words one chooses. If this is going to be a community code of conduct, then there needs to be at least some community consensus on what that means (consent of the governed, and all that). I fear this might be hard to reach except for cases which are unlikely to occur in practice.
> Consent of the governed does not necessarily require a broad consensus on anything other than who is doing the governing.  It helps, but on divisive issues (such as what constitutes discriminatory speech) I don't think we'll reach a strong enough consensus, and we'll need to rely on strong and fair individuals to act in the best interests of Mozilla as a whole.  I don't expect those people to always be right, but it's more likely to get to better outcomes than only enforcing things that everyone agrees is a bad thing.
>
> -- Mike
>
Hear hear.  Striving for consensus will only waste (more) time.  We have 
some proposals in other threads that we can elaborate on towards 
something tangible going forward.  Let's get something ready for 
project-wide adoption sooner rather than later and then we can continue 
to iterate over the process of how that is interpreted and acted on by 
the individuals who use it as it is used, at least we will have a base 
started on the layer of our current 'nothing'.

-Lukas

-- 
*-*-*-*-*
Release Manager, Mozillian
http://mzl.la/LukasBlakk

0
Lukas
3/14/2012 3:21:30 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Precedence of "where" ("of", "is", "will")?
Nobody on #perl6 today could answer this one. Is: Str | Int where { $_ } the same as: (Str | Int) where { $_ } or: Str | (Int where { $_ }) ? Followup questions, Mr. President: What kind of operators are "where", "of", "is", and "will"? Is there a reason that S03 doesn't list them? What are their precedence(s)? -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <chip@pobox.com> Open Source is not an excuse to write fun code then leave the actual work to others. Chip Salzenberg writes: &...

.ALLCOL("%COLUMN%", " ", ", ", ", ")
Do you know anyway for me to exclude a subset of columns returned by this function. We have two columns (rec_user and rec_datetime) which are in all of our tables, but when generating triggers I want automatically generate a script which does not include those two columns but does include all other columns in that table. Bruce I should add that I am using PD 9.0.0.580. Bruce "Bruce Lamb" <lamb.bruce@mayo.edu> wrote in message news:6HgI315nCHA.155@forums.sybase.com... > Do you know anyway for me to exclude a subset of columns returned by this > function. ...

rename SLP scope unit from "UNSCOPED" to "SCOPED"
Hi, In the NW51SP8, it says on point 2.4 : "In this Support Pack, SLP does not support the use of an Unscoped Scope, but in some previous NetWare 5.1 Support Packs it did not prevent the naming of a scope as UNSCOPED. Slpda.nlm now enforces this prohibition, and it will not load with an scope named UNSCOPED. To resolve this, rename the scope from UNSCOPED to something else." Is it the right way to rename the scoped unit from UNSCOPED to SCOPED. If yes, I already checked that I cannot rename the scoped unit because it is in use by DAs. Is it just a qu...

quotes, quotes, quotes...
I am getting this error and I know what is causing it, but I have no idea how to fix it, any help would be great. The script steps through the /var/log/messages file on a linux server and puts The entries into a mysql database. However when it gets to the 'hlt' line in the messages file it just barfs. The single quotes are freaking it out. I know about quotes but not how to use in this situation. Thanks, Paul Error: May 27 17:53:00 localhost kernel: Checking 'hlt' instruction... OK. <----- doesn't like this in the messages file DBD::mysql::st exec...

"Using" or "With"
Hi all Please can someone enlighten to me as regards the difference with the "Using" and "With" statement when accessing data - which is better, what are the limitations and/or any pointers. Many thanks. Regards DaveDavid WinchesterPlease mark as answer if this is the solution.  using gives you the ability to use the connection and it closes the connection directlly after you finish using it. and there is no need to try- cach - finaly. there is no limitation on using USING keywordMuhanad YOUNISMCSD.NETMy Blog || My Photos || LinkedIn I have a dataobject the re...

double quote
hello there...  i tried everything of think but not working the way i wanted to be... not sure what i'm missing...i'm generating a <span> in code behind and then using in javascript.... here is what i'm doing code behind: int i=0string _keywordID = "keyword";string _name = row["visit_info_nm"].ToString().Trim(); String _getElementByID = String.Format("<span id='{0}' OnClick = \"document.getElementById('{1}').value='{2}';\">{3}</span><br>", i, _keywordID, _name, _name); here is what it generate : <span id='1' OnClick = \"document.getElementById('keyword')...

"-" not "_"
I wrote a SQL statement in the data tab. I wrote a bunch of alaises as example ' word-type ' but when I hit the layout tab it converts the "-" to "_". So now my field name is ' word_type '. Is there any way to prevent this? CardGunner Don' use a hypen ( - ).  It isn't a valid character for column names.   See http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/expert/KnowledgebaseAnswer/0,289625,sid87_gci1188931,00.html   Here's an excerpt about column names: Letters as defined in the Unicode Standard 2.0 Decimal numbers from either B...

Replacing "\\" with "\"
Hi all I'm getting this value from a CheckBoxList control - a location of file, i have to remove "\\" and replace it with "\" and pass it to Query, how to do it, i tried with Replace, but coud'nt suceed. "\\\\Blaze10xp\\BLZ_SFS_07\\Sample Excel Files\\Excel Files\\report2.xls" thank's in advance - Prakash.C you tried Replace like this? string newstring = oldstring.Replace(@"\\",@"\");Plese, do not forget to click "Mark as Answer" on the post that helped you. Thanx!My blog: Scenes From A Developer Memory yes i tr...

Using "+" or "||"
Using SQLAnywhere 5.5.04, I've gotten into the habit of using "||" in ISQL to indicate a string concatenation. I needed to paste my SQL statement into the PowerBuilder script painter for some embedded SQL, and PB didn't like the "||" very much at all. I changed it to "+" and it seems to be ok. Do these two operators indicate ~exactly~ the same thing? moin, afaik these two's are not the same! if you're using "||" and any term is NULL then in the resultstring the term will be ignored if you use "+" then the resu...

"To" and "From" missing
When I print emails, the words "To" and "From" are blank, even though the "To" name and "From name (addresser, addressee) do show up. This is not a problem for other users on my system. Suggestions In mailbox right click, view. On the message window, right click and choose print options. Make sure print header is checked. -- Barry Merchant NSC Volunteer SysOp *** no email unless requested please!! *** > In mailbox right click, view. On the message window, right click and > choose print options. Make sure prin...

replace the "." with a ","
Oi.... I need to build a small programm in ASP.NET and chose to use C# for it.Now i got everything working but there's one little problem.the first textbox is a double. I need to make it so that when someone enters a "." then it gets replaced by a ","any ideas?Ghan  string blah = "4.2.2.2";blah = blah.Replace(".", ",");Ryan Ryan OlshanASPInsider | Microsoft MVP, ASP.NEThttp://ryanolshan.comHow to ask a question...

"Me" is better than "You"
Yes I know, strings are frozen. But let me talk about it, I really can't get through the idea of a PC talkin to me. I consider my PC as an extension of myself, not a dumb companion who addresses Me as You. Yes there are times when I get angry with Him while I work and get wrong calculations etc.., but it really is my fault, Me using wrong istructions and eventually wanting to find someone else to blame, but it's Me. And yes, I consider Thunderbird my mail program, reading my mail on my PC as Me. So I personally like to have Me in the header bar as a compact address ...

Regular Expression to remove "/", "\", "<", ">" and "="
Can anyone please show me the regular expression to reject a string ("<blue", "right>" etc.) which has the following expression in it: "/", "\", "<", ">" and "="  hi, It may Help u.. it is in Class file u may use this expressin in validation controls also. Regex objReg = new Regex(@"^[^,.?/\~|`;:'<>]*$", RegexOptions.Singleline); Regex objReg = new Regex(@"^[^,][^.][^?][^/][^\][^~|][^`][^;][^:][^'][[^<][^>]$", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);Thanks &...

"JROC" / "JROK" / "JROCK" / "JROQ"
I just started a new contract and the tech lead told me that he wanted me to become familiar with something called "JROC" (among some other tools). I've been searching the web and I haven't found any dev tool called "JROC." Based on the name of the tool, it sounds like it encapsulates some javascript functionality. I have tried searching for different spellings - "JROK" / "JROCK" / "JROQ" but I haven't found any matches. Have you ever heard of a dev tool by this name?...

pulling out "a","an", "the" from beginning of strings
I need to pull out articles "a", "an", and "the" from the beginning of title strings so that they sort properly in MySQL. What is the best way to accomplish that if I have a single $scalar with the whole title in it? Thanks, Tim -- Tim McGeary tim.mcgeary@lehigh.edu --=-weUphL4mkB1WR5g+DMDc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 15:04, Tim McGeary wrote: > I need to pull out articles "a", "an", and "the" from the beginning of=20 >...

Web resources about - Scope of "Mozilla" and Planet Mozilla - mozilla.governance

Resources last updated: 12/28/2015 10:29:45 AM