GovernanceIssues: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

GovernanceIssues (view source)

Revision as of 13:07, 3 September 2013

3,253 bytes added , 3 September 2013

no edit summary

Gerv

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

4,925

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 __NOTOC__
-This is a list of open Mozilla community governance issues. Please add suggestions to the [[GovernanceIssues/Scratchpad|scratchpad]].
+This is a list of Mozilla community governance issues. Please add suggestions to the [[GovernanceIssues/Scratchpad|scratchpad]].
 We also have a page listing [http://www.mozilla.org/about/policies/ existing policies].
@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 Most of these issues are being tackled by [[User:Gerv|Gerv]].
-==Open Issues==
+==Active==
-===Improve Module Owners List===
+===Discussion Forums Changes===
+Issue: There are several issues with the current technical implementation of our discussion forums - primarily spam, but also the unresponsiveness of Google re: Google Groups and so on.
+Proposal: We should look at alternative technical options.
+* [[Discussion_Forums/Problem_Statement|Problem Statement]]
+* [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/browse_thread/thread/7d418189694b88d1# mozilla.governance thread on mailing list spam]
+Status: There have been [[Discussion_Forums/Proposal|plans in the past]], which have got derailed by lack of IT time. Community IT is now [https://wiki.mozilla.org/IT/Community/WG/Discourse standing up] an [http://discourse.mozilla-community.org/ instance] of [http://www.discourse.org/ Discourse] which we hope to evaluate and use as a gradual replacement for the current system.
+Next Steps: Test Discourse instance.
+===Mozilla Code Not In Our Repos===
+Issue: recently, Mozilla community members have been storing Mozilla code in repos other than ours (e.g. github, Google Code). Is this a concern from a community, technical or a legal point of view?
+Proposal: Require people with direct access to our Github repos to sign the Committer's Agreement (who haven't signed it already).
+Status: Gerv has access to the necessary Github APIs (for Github committers) and LDAP dump information (for existing Hg committers).
-Issue: it's often out of date, because it's maintained through despot, which takes a lot of work.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.
+Next Steps: Gerv needs to write code to reconcile and match people across those two data sources. Then we need to contact all the people who haven't signed the agreement yet and ask them to.
-* [http://www.mozilla.org/owners.html Current, despot-generated list]
+===Stale Reviews===
-* [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/browse_thread/thread/86e8bc621062a8b6# Module Owners List Action Plan] from mitchell (July 2008 :-( - some objections were raised)
-* [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: new system built, data migrated, undergoing review by module owners. Hope to cut over within the next week.
+Issue: Some review requests remain open and unloved in Bugzilla. This is bad for the (often new) contributors who make patches and see them ignored.
-===Retire Incubator Program===
+* [http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pcR-hFir9x0Pn-TxV3j2Zbg Spreadsheet mapping Bugzilla components to modules], prepared by Dirkjan Ochtman.
-Issue: [http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/06/06/incubator-repositories-proposal/ the incubator program], for creating new Hg repos for collaborating with outside coders, was useful when getting access to our tree was hard. Due to the new [http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/commit-access-policy/ Commit Access Policy], it's now much easier, so Stuart agreed with my suggestion that we could wind this program down.
+Status: Bugzilla started whining about outstanding requests on a weekly basis, and data was captured to see if this has significant effect on the queue. It had some effect, but we then levelled off and have since been slowly creeping back upwards. Bugzilla now bans reviews requested "of the wind", and suggests appropriate reviewers for review requests.
-Next Steps: Stuart has agreed; retirement proposed to relevant parties.
+On 24th August 2013, a patch was committed to Bugzilla so that Bugzilla now tracks the day a person was last seen. That will allow us to implement {{bug|751862}} (ban requests from requestees who haven't been around for ages) and {{bug|751863}} (cancel requests of requestees who have not been around for ages).
-Related bugs: {{bug|478387}}, {{bug|466552}}
+Next Steps: Implement those two bugs.
-===Mozilla Code Not In Our Repos===
+===Non-Copyleft Licensing===
-Issue: recently, Mozilla community members have been storing Mozilla code in repos other than ours (e.g. github, Google Code). Is this a concern from a community, technical or a legal point of view? Possible issues include worrying about stuff being hosted in the cloud, worrying about
+Issue: various parts of Mozilla have started using non-MPL licenses for new codebases.
-Next Steps: Mitchell to talk to senior engineers about the issue.
+Proposal: Have discussion about formally permitting this, and then work out if we want to make the effort to switch over legacy codebases.
-==On Hold==
+Status: after consultation and discussion, it was agreed that the Apache License 2.0 would be an option maintainers could choose in some circumstances for new codebases. The licensing policy was updated accordingly.
-===Triage Stale Reviews===
+Next Steps: Decide if we want to try and get some existing BSD-using codebases or frameworks switched over. There's [[License_Policy/Mozilla_Project_Licensing|a list]] of which projects use what. The Playdoh framework is an obvious candidate.
-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.
+==Pending/On Hold==
-* [http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pcR-hFir9x0Pn-TxV3j2Zbg Spreadsheet mapping Bugzilla components to modules], prepared by Dirkjan Ochtman.
+===Community Governance Reboot===
-Next Steps: blocked on "Improve Module Owners List". Then add mapping to list, and write nagging scripts.
+Issue: the Module Ownership system does not cover all of the activities that Mozilla now engages in. This means that the MoCo org chart is the ''de facto'' governance structure, which makes it impossible for non-employees to take on positions of responsibility.
-===Shouldn't-Be-Private Mailing Lists===
+Status: An [[Activity_Map]] was built in January and February to map out all the things Mozilla does, so we can see where community governance needs to be put in place. (It may need reviewing and updating when this project restarts.)
-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.
+Next Steps: We need to decide what the future governance structure will look like, in broad terms, before we go ahead and try and create it. It will, at heart, involve Putting People In Charge Of Stuff, but there are a number of ways that can be achieved.
-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.
+===Commit Access Levels and GitHub===
-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.
+Issue: How do we map our ideas of commit access levels onto the model used by GitHub, if at all? {{bug|760153}}.
-==Proposed==
+Proposal: We don't; let's just make sure everyone with direct commit access has signed the Committer's Agreement.
 ===Change Bugzilla Workflow===
@@ Line 61: / Line 78: @@
 Other suggestions: open up EXPIRED, or collapse EXPIRED, WONTFIX and INVALID into INACTIVE or some other word.
+Status: there are two proposals - a [[BMO/Workflow_Proposal|safe-ish one]] and a [[BMO/Workflow_Proposal_2|more radical one]]. lhenry, the new Bugmaster, is evaluating which (if either) of these proposals is worth pushing.
 ==Resolved==
+===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.
+Actions: 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.
+Status: an initial look suggested that this was not a big problem. Although the analysis was not exhaustive, it was sufficient.
+===Improve Module Owners List===
+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]
+* [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.governance/browse_thread/thread/86e8bc621062a8b6# Module Owners List Action Plan] from mitchell (July 2008 :-( - some objections were raised)
+* [https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Mailnews_and_Mail_code_review_requirements document] from Dan on the MailNews review system, which include modules and owners.
+Status: new system built, data migrated, owners.html redirected.
+===Retire Incubator Program===
+Issue: [http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/06/06/incubator-repositories-proposal/ the incubator program], for creating new Hg repos for collaborating with outside coders, was useful when getting access to our tree was hard. Due to the new [http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/commit-access-policy/ Commit Access Policy], it's now much easier, so Stuart agreed with my suggestion that we could wind this program down.
+Related bugs: {{bug|478387}}, {{bug|466552}}
+Status: program retired.
 ===Trim Super-Reviewers List===
@@ Line 122: / Line 167: @@
 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===
@@ Line 138: / Line 175: @@
 Resolution: mconnor updated the super-review policy.
+==Regular Governance Tasks==
+Some issues need revisiting on a regular basis, perhaps once a year. This is a (doubtless incomplete) list:
+* Update super-reviewers list
+* Check for shouldn't-be-private mailing lists
+* Disable dormant SCM accounts (note: last-used dates for SCM accounts are tracked by IT in LDAP)