There seems to be discomfort with the word emeritus.
So I'll start with the *very* factual Former Module Owners group.
Also, at MozCamp Asia last week I gave a special recognition to Channy
Yun, for his decade plus work in Korea, combined with the careful way he
identified, mentored and passed on his role as community leader to
another member. I'll try to get a video clip of this -- probably not
more than a few minutes, so easy to watch -- so anyone interested can
see it. That way we can see if it's a good basis for a program of the
type described in item 2 below.
mitchell
On 11/20/12 5:50 AM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
I've found there are two different ideas that I may have confused.
So, theres a Revised Proposal below!
One idea is a way of identifying someone who was a module owner /
community leader but no longer is. That's a factual matter.
The other idea is a way of honoring a subset of people who have made
extraordinary contributions. The "emeritus" title seems to suggest this
to a number of people. And the Eclipse project uses "ereritus" for this
latter category and "former committers" for the first category.
My first goal is to create the first category. Factual. The "honored,
specially nominated or identified subset of contirubors" may be a good
group to create as well. In any case, i think we need a way to identify
"Former Module Owners" and "Former Community Leaders" factually.
I don't want to have a setting where passing on authority means no
organizational status unless people agree you're particularly special.
That feels like a very divisive path to me.
So, I've got a REVISED proposal.
1. We make an offical "Former" status. It's quite factual; everyone
who passes on a module or analagous leadership role can use this, and we
can maintain a list, etc. We implement this first. I'm very open to
words other than "Former" but haven't been able to think of a great one
myself.
How about we use "emeritus" instead of "former" here (anyone who's been
a module owner/peer/CEO/board member, etc surely merits such a fancy
title :) and then come up with something else for category #2, which may
or may not imply past tense.
2. We look at creating a group of specially honored contributors. We'll
want to decide if those are only those who are no longer active, or
include people who are still active but we want to recognize. I haven't
thought this through, so don't have crisp ideas on this myself yet. We
can see who seems obvious to honor and when, and decide based on some
experience. Or we could make a theory and test it.
I can drive item 1. If you've got a particular interest in Item 2, and
actually some time to think about it, please let me know and we can do
some brainstorming.
On 11/9/12 7:58 AM, Jason Duell wrote:
On 11/07/2012 10:50 AM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
Wow, this is a great tip. Thanks! I'm temped to adopt it verbatim.
The idea is good, and so is most of the language (I like "emeritus").
Re: verbatim: I don't know that we'd want to tie becoming emeritus to
giving up commit status. In particular, I can imagine some of our less
active module owners being willing to give up that title/role in
exchange for emeritus status, but not necessarily at the cost of no
longer being able to review patches or land them, etc.
Jason
It's great. and I like the idea of open source projects using
standard techniques and practices.
many thanks!
mitchell
On 11/7/12 7:30 PM, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
I think this is a great idea that has some precedent in the open
source community. Here's a link to the Eclipse committer emeritus page.
http://www.eclipse.org/projects/committers-emeritus.php
Lawrence
----- Original Message -----
Over the years we've identified a few specific roles at Mozilla.
These
are described in the Roles and Responsibilities document
(http://www.mozilla.org/about/roles.html). I'd like to update this
document in general to reflect the Mozilla project today. That's a
task
that will take some work and you'll see from me about this in the
coming
months.
For now, I'm proposing we add a new role or status. I'd like to be
able
to recognize people who have built something at Mozilla and then
passed
on their authority. This will give us a way to describe people
after
it is no longer accurate to say "I'm the module owner" or community
leader or other activities. I'm thinking we'd attach a year to it.
So someone would be something like "[Name of module or similar
activity]
Module Owner Emeritus, 2012.", The year would be the date the person
passed on their leadership to someone else. I'm inclined start with
the
present, and work our way backwards in time.
We cold make an Emeritus Roll, where we list people, including a link
to
the materials that show *how* and when they passed on their
authority.
This would allow others to learn, and allow us to point to the ones
that
seem the best learning examples as reference material.
Thoughts?
Mitchell
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
