Mitchell et al. -- I think that transferring responsibilities is a key part of the contributor lifecycle, and we should definitely encourage it. In any system of reward or recognition, however, we should be thoughtful about the outcomes we want "socially encouraged," and make sure that the system is more likely to lead to the outcomes we want.
In particular, I think we should not just 'fix deadwood', but encourage thoughtful succession planning: in my mind, the ideal contributor looks to the health of the area that they're involved with (I'll likely use the word 'module' to describe that concept more loosely than the existing module definition implies). As part of that long term view, the module owner, IMO, would seek out potential successors early, train them while they're still active, and transition ownership while they'r still involved. (As part of that long term view they also would look at contributor pipeline, internal integrity (things like architecture docs, code docs, wiki health, etc., but that's a bit off topic.) We should also try to make it so that contribution to the project as a whole is more heavily valued than the bragging rights of a particular role. A module owner whose time is stretched by too many commitments should be incentivized to find a replacement, not to keep holding on to a 'title'. Speaking of titles: I have a bit of a concern that the word emeritus has negative brand connotations depending on the background of the people involved -- it would be good to find out whether the 'labels' we use have the positive association we intend for them to have. --david _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
