Confirmed users
532
edits
Identity/WeeklyMeeting/2013-08-12: Difference between revisions
Identity/WeeklyMeeting/2013-08-12 (view source)
Revision as of 20:12, 12 August 2013
, 12 August 2013→Meeting Notes
No edit summary |
m (→Meeting Notes) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
*** 2. Talk about how often will we do reviews/conversations | *** 2. Talk about how often will we do reviews/conversations | ||
*** This conversation will happen in your 1 on 1 over the next 2 weeks (ya, that's after the designated end date for "Stage Setting" conversation) | *** This conversation will happen in your 1 on 1 over the next 2 weeks (ya, that's after the designated end date for "Stage Setting" conversation) | ||
*** Lloyd says that in Edwin's | *** Lloyd says that in Edwin's absence there's likely the option to just delay the "Stage Setting" for QA | ||
** Performance review | ** Performance review | ||
*** Lloyd and Ben have had conversations before Ben left regarding everyone's performance | *** Lloyd and Ben have had conversations before Ben left regarding everyone's performance | ||
*** 1st review happens with Lloyd and your manager sometime in | *** 1st review happens with Lloyd and your manager sometime in September (salary changes, etc). | ||
**** Salary adjustments will be back-dated to the right date regardless of when the conversation happens | **** Salary adjustments will be back-dated to the right date regardless of when the conversation happens | ||
* Project Leadership Model | * Project Leadership Model | ||
** Any questions/concerns about Lloyd's idea? | ** Any questions/concerns about Lloyd's idea? | ||
*** Karl : previously there was a secondary leader on teams, unlike in the new "project leadership" model. Lloyd says +1 to having primaries establish a secondary for themselves | *** Karl : previously there was a secondary leader on teams, unlike in the new "project leadership" model. Lloyd says +1 to having primaries establish a secondary for themselves. | ||
*** Shane : What about when a project reaches a point of self sustainment (e.g. Persona | *** Shane : What about when a project reaches a point of self sustainment (e.g. Persona iOS). Lloyd : Another example "FirefoxOS Persona integration". There should always be a maintainer/owner for a project. | ||
*** Rob : What's the motivation for the project leadership model | *** Rob : What's the motivation for the project leadership model? What's trying to be solved? Lloyd : Not all progress is currently being communicated. With regular status reports from project leaders this could be solved. Communication is a major motivation for the model. Also to make explicit some existing implied project leadership (e.g. Dan on sign-in). Rob : Could we not solve the communication problem with Tauni rolling up what each projects status is? Lloyd : ya Austin : Escalation method and people is an issue that's currently not defined, this will help that. Gecko components need to have owners which is a new thing for us. | ||
* Gene : any thoughts about the topic in MoCo about having user data in a form that we can read (unlike previously with sync where we didn't have access to user's data)? Lloyd : This is surfacing the hard question when PICL was starting to the larger Mozilla community. | * Gene : any thoughts about the topic in MoCo about having user data in a form that we can read (unlike previously with sync where we didn't have access to user's data)? Lloyd : This is surfacing the hard question when PICL was starting to the larger Mozilla community. | ||
* Ryan F : He's working on a dev centric site for Sean and Didem. https://id.etherpad.mozilla.org/developers-persona-org | * Ryan F : He's working on a dev centric site for Sean and Didem. https://id.etherpad.mozilla.org/developers-persona-org | ||
* Karl : He's working on Moz IDP security testing | * Karl : He's working on Moz IDP security testing | ||
* Rob : He was talking with Paxton and he wants to do a sync picl review and communicate progress and status up the chain. | * Rob : He was talking with Paxton and he wants to do a sync picl review and communicate progress and status up the chain. | ||
= Team Status = | = Team Status = | ||
== Native (B2G) == | == Native (B2G) == | ||