GovernanceIssues: Difference between revisions

GovernanceIssues (view source)

Revision as of 16:53, 3 December 2009

526 bytes added , 3 December 2009

no edit summary

Gerv

Account confirmers, Anti-spam team, Confirmed users, Bureaucrats and Sysops emeriti

4,925

edits

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ===Non-Code ("Activities") Modules===
-Whether we need any more modules of this sort, and who might own them. Work out what makes a good module, and who makes a good module owner. Mark says: make sure it's not just a mirror of Mozilla staffing structure, and not just an addition to a job title. Examples: SFX, mozilla.org (content vs. technical split?).
+Issue: Do we need any more Activities modules? Who might own them? We should work out what makes a good module, and who makes a good module owner. Possible examples: SFX, mozilla.org (content vs. technical split?). Do we need to separate policy creation and implementation?
-Also contains the question of whether we need to separate policy creation and implementation.
 * [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Module_Owners_Activities_Modules List of existing Activities Modules]
 * [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/browse_thread/thread/208ee06876dc8517# Discussion thread on the "Policies" activities module]
-Next Steps: think of possible additional modules.
+So Far: A call for ideas was issued; the following proposals were made: [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/msg/3594d1e366ed64c5 Websites] (David Boswell), [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/msg/fc99b634c1c0b628 Education] (Gervase Markham)
+Next Steps: discuss with Mitchell.
 ===Commit Access Policies: Dormant Accounts===
-We now have a [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/msg/73389b3f4c4f5de9 policy], and we are in the middle of implementing it.
+Issue: We have many SCM accounts which are no longer used. This increases our security attack surface.
+So Far: We now have a [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/msg/73389b3f4c4f5de9 policy], and we are in the middle of implementing it. [http://hg.mozilla.org/users/gerv_mozilla.org/active-accounts/ Scripts] have been written to extract the dormant list, and refined based on a first round of feedback.
-Next Steps: fix script which works out which accounts are active; disable inactive accounts.
+Next Steps: get updated list of active accounts from IT; disable inactive accounts.
 ===Commit Access Policies: Harmonization===
-Which policies apply to which repositories? Do we want to harmonize and make consistent? Is access repo-specific or do some accesses imply other ones?
+Issue: Our commit access policies are currently very diverse. We should harmonize them and make them consistent, understandable and easy to implement.
 * [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Commit_Policy:Current_Procedures reed's long list of what happens now]
-Next Steps: Mitchell, Axel and Seth to review Gerv's revised proposal.
+So Far: Gerv has assessed the current state of things, and written a [[Commit_Policy|draft]] of a unified policy.
+Next Steps: public review (ongoing).
 ===Committer's Agreement===
-Finish the transition to the new agreement by nagging those who have not signed and eventually disabling accounts.
+Issue: Transition to the new agreement by nagging those who have not signed and eventually disabling accounts.
 * There is a private Google Docs spreadsheet tracking the progress.
-Next Steps: disabling dormant accounts will reduce the list significantly, so wait for that, and then look at who is left.
+So Far: Since summer 2008 lots of calls to sign the new one have been issued, and many people have moved over. An ultimatum was issued and the deadline given in that ultimatum has now passed. We are now moving on to disabling the SCM accounts of those who have not signed the new agreement.
+Next Steps: blocked on dormant accounts work - getting a final list here will allow us to reduce the list to active untransitioned people. We can then disable those accounts.
 ===Bug Triage===
-Go through open governance bugs and attempt to resolve - either immediately, or via this list. At the moment, it doesn't look like there's anything major on there.
+Issue: There are numerous open bugs in the Governance component in Bugzilla, which need to be triaged and, where possible, resolved.
-* [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&product=mozilla.org&component=Governance&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&resolution=---&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0= List of open mozilla.org/Governance bugs] (currently <strike>24</strike> <strike>18</strike> <strike>8</strike> 7)
+* [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&product=mozilla.org&component=Governance&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&resolution=---&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0= List of open mozilla.org/Governance bugs]
+So Far: Open bug count reduced from 24 to 7.
 Next Steps: triage ongoing.
-===Discussion Forums===
-There are several issues with the current technical implementation - the unresponsiveness of Google re: Google Groups and so on. Need to look at whether to take the web interface part back in house, and/or put in place other anti-spam measures.
-* [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/browse_thread/thread/7d418189694b88d1# mozilla.governance thread on mailing list spam]
-Next Steps: start discussion with IT about technical options.
 ===Monday Meeting===
-Clarify the purpose of the meeting, and determine whether the current timing is optimal.
+Issue: Clarify the purpose of the meeting, and determine whether the current timing is optimal.
 * [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/browse_thread/thread/68685672ffb76f6b/37cf986d3962a47 thread in mozilla.dev.planning on moving the meeting time]
@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 * [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/89fa03e13375ae9f dria's summary of the meeting's purpose]
-Next Steps: Discussions on meeting purpose are ongoing in mozilla.dev.planning.
+So Far: Timing has been moved. Gerv has had discussions with surman and beltzner about possible improvements to content and format.
+Next Steps: Gerv is working on a proposal for change.
 ==On Hold==
+===Discussion Forums===
+There are several issues with the current technical implementation - the unresponsiveness of Google re: Google Groups and so on. Need to look at whether to take the web interface part back in house, and/or put in place other anti-spam measures.
+* [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/browse_thread/thread/7d418189694b88d1# mozilla.governance thread on mailing list spam]
+Next Steps: it doesn't look like there's a suitable alternative web interface out there. :-( So it's hard to see how to proceed.
 ===Module Owners List===
-Make it hackable, parseable, easier to maintain and therefore more accurate.
+Issue: it's often out of date, because it's maintained through despot, which takes a lot of work. We would like to make it hackable, parseable, easier to maintain and therefore more accurate.
 * [http://www.mozilla.org/owners.html Current, despot-generated list]
@@ Line 79: / Line 89: @@
 ===Stale Reviews===
-Review requests remain open and unloved in Bugzilla. This is bad for the (often new) contributors who make patches and see them ignored. Fixing the Module Owners List and mapping it to Bugzilla components allows us to nag module owners about their reviews - cancel, do or delegate.
+Issue: Review requests remain open and unloved in Bugzilla. This is bad for the (often new) contributors who make patches and see them ignored. Fixing the Module Owners List and mapping it to Bugzilla components allows us to nag module owners about their reviews - cancel, do or delegate.
 * [http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pcR-hFir9x0Pn-TxV3j2Zbg Spreadsheet mapping Bugzilla components to modules], prepared by Dirkjan Ochtman.
@@ Line 87: / Line 97: @@
 ===Governance Community===
-The community of people discussing governance issues itself could do with broadening and expanding. Too often, those most affected by governance decisions do not take part in the formulation of policy. Why is this?
+Issue: The community of people discussing governance issues itself could do with broadening and expanding. Too often, those most affected by governance decisions do not take part in the formulation of policy. Why is this?
-===Other Module Ownership Issues===
-The discussion at the all-hands brought up issues other than non-code modules, such as whether some modules were too big, and whether we need to actively search for 'outside peers'.
-* [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/browse_thread/thread/d142e16757257f25# Mark's summary of all-hands discussion] on module ownership
-Next Steps: get Mitchell's opinion on whether any issues in Mark's summary are worth chasing up.
 ==Resolved==
@@ Line 101: / Line 103: @@
 ===Super-Review Policy===
-mconnor has updated the super-review policy.
+Issue: super-review policy is out of date. mconnor is updating it.
 * [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/browse_thread/thread/1c7c826dca44043c# Mike's latest draft]
-===Monday Meeting Time===
+Resolution: mconnor updated the super-review policy.
-* Mitchell moved this to 11am PST.
-== Open Issues==
-* Is there a "review policy" item, other than the one above?