On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Taras Glek <[email protected]> wrote: > The planet is our main venue for discussing our work in the open, we should > treat it with more care. I think it's pretty clear that the slow process of > getting people on planet is causing more harm than good(how many people DID > NOT get approved in the last few years?).
I have been arguing for a while now that more Planet should have more effort put into it. IIRC I've even offered to help out several times, but I've never really gotten a response. As a volunteer, Planet is one of the most important ways for me to keep tabs on what's happening in the wider Mozilla community. Not approving blogs for addition to Planet as well as not being more active in keeping off-topic content off Planet is actively harmful to that goal, because it will discourage people from subscribing to or just reading Planet. I also think the Planet split from a while ago has not been entirely right in the sense that some feeds are off on different planets that see a much smaller audience. FWIW, I'm not sure automating Planet additions is the right way to go here. I do think adding more maintainers would be helpful. I think this is something where volunteers could help out, although maybe there are some trust issues wrt access to the infrastructure Planet runs on? In any case, I think it's too bad that Mozilla leadership/Contributor engagement/Outreach has been ignoring Planet maintenance for way too long, and I hope we can find a way to change it. If anyone wants to discuss it at the Summit, I'd be happy to (I'm in Brussels -- can we organize some cross-location meeting space?). Cheers, Dirkjan _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
