GovernanceIssues: Difference between revisions

GovernanceIssues (view source)

Revision as of 16:08, 20 April 2010

284 bytes removed , 20 April 2010

Many things have been done; make list match reality

Gerv

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

4,925

edits

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 * [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Commit_Policy:Current_Procedures reed's long list of what happens now]
-So Far: [http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/commit-access-policy/ Commit Access Policy] written and implemented.
+So Far: [http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/commit-access-policy/ new Commit Access Policy] written and implemented.
-Next Steps: Just waiting for LDAP infrastructure to catch up before we close this one off.
+Next Steps: Just waiting for [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=549873 LDAP infrastructure to catch up] before we close this one off.
 ===Switch To New Committer's Agreement===
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 * There is a private Google Docs spreadsheet tracking the progress.
-So Far: List of delinquents made; just need to give it to IT in the right format and get it disabled.
+So Far: List of people made; big efforts over the past two years to get people to sign; ultimatum issued and deadline passed. List of delinquents made; just need to give it to IT in the right format and get these accounts disabled.
-Next Steps: waiting for LDAP infrastructure changes.
+Next Steps: Gerv needs to to give the list to IT.
 ===Governance Bug Triage===
@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 Next Steps: triage ongoing.
-===Monday Meeting===
-Issue: the Monday meeting is having an identity crisis. Clarify the purpose and most useful content 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]
-* [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Community_Calendar Community Calendar]
-* [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/89fa03e13375ae9f dria's summary of the meeting's purpose]
-So Far: Timing has been changed; Ten Forward has been rearranged; Gerv has written [[WeeklyUpdates/Guidance|guidance]]; Jono is the new host and is making many other changes.
-Next Steps: Asa has a plan for making technical improvements in the next three months (to March). This should give us better lighting, sound and video.
-===Create More Non-Code ("Activities") Modules===
-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?
-* [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]
-"We should create modules when there is a specific level of responsibility, authority and decision making that it would be helpful to invest in a person." - Mitchell
-"We should make modules to unambiguously place an activity in the arena of stuff which we apply open source and transparent principles to." - Gerv
-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). Other suggestions that have been made in the past include "Events and Speaking", "AMO", "Mozilla Style Guide", "Transparency".
-Next Steps: Mitchell to propose a module for Community Metrics.
-==On Hold==
 ===Improve Module Owners List===
@@ Line 75: / Line 46: @@
 * [https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Mailnews_and_Mail_code_review_requirements document] from Dan on the MailNews review system, which include modules and owners.
-Next Steps: reconsider objections raised. Try and get consensus on switching list format. (dmose very much in favour.)
+Next Steps: build the proposed new system so people have something to comment on.
-===Triage Stale Reviews===
+===Shouldn't-Be-Private Mailing Lists===
-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.
+Issue: Mozilla runs a large number of mailing lists, as well as our public [http://www.mozilla.org/community/developer-forums.html discussion forums]. We should audit that list to make sure no project discussion is private when it should be (at least) read-only public.
-* [http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pcR-hFir9x0Pn-TxV3j2Zbg Spreadsheet mapping Bugzilla components to modules], prepared by Dirkjan Ochtman.
+So Far: Gerv wrote a small script to extract a list of possibly-concerning mailing lists from mailman. He has had several iterations of the list from mzeier, refining the script each time.
-Next Steps: blocked on above. Then add mapping to list, and write nagging scripts.
+Next Steps: contact the owners of possibly-concerning lists, and ask them politely about the purpose of their list and whether public would be a better option.
-===Discussion Forums Technical Refresh===
+==On Hold==
-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.
+===Triage Stale Reviews===
-* [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/browse_thread/thread/7d418189694b88d1# mozilla.governance thread on mailing list spam]
+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.
-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.
+* [http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pcR-hFir9x0Pn-TxV3j2Zbg Spreadsheet mapping Bugzilla components to modules], prepared by Dirkjan Ochtman.
-===Shouldn't-Be-Private Mailing Lists===
-Issue: Mozilla runs a large number of mailing lists, as well as our public [http://www.mozilla.org/community/developer-forums.html discussion forums]. We should audit that list to make sure no project discussion is private when it should be (at least) read-only public.
-So Far: Gerv wrote a small script to extract a list of possibly-concerning mailing lists from mailman. He has had several iterations of the list from mzeier, refining the script each time.
+Next Steps: blocked on "Improve Module Owners List". Then add mapping to list, and write nagging scripts.
-Next Steps: contact the owners of possibly-concerning lists, and ask them politely about the purpose of their list and whether public would be a better option.
 ==Proposed==
@@ Line 118: / Line 83: @@
 Status: Done; 400+ accounts disabled, only a couple erroneously :-)
+===Monday Meeting===
+Issue: the Monday meeting is having an identity crisis. Clarify the purpose and most useful content 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]
+* [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Community_Calendar Community Calendar]
+* [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/89fa03e13375ae9f dria's summary of the meeting's purpose]
+Status: Done; timing has been changed; Ten Forward has been rearranged; Gerv has written [[WeeklyUpdates/Guidance|guidance]]; Jono is the new host and is making many other changes. Meetings are now fairly awesome.
+===Create More Non-Code ("Activities") Modules===
+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?
+* [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]
+"We should create modules when there is a specific level of responsibility, authority and decision making that it would be helpful to invest in a person." - Mitchell
+"We should make modules to unambiguously place an activity in the arena of stuff which we apply open source and transparent principles to." - Gerv
+Status: A number of modules have been proposed and created; Mitchell will create more as she feels the need.
+===Discussion Forums Technical Refresh===
+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]
+Status: On indefinite hold. It doesn't look like there's a suitable alternative web interface out there. :-( So it's hard to see how to proceed.
 ===Update Super-Review Policy===