Governance and Release Model updates

Blake Winton bwinton at mozilla.com
Sat Nov 3 01:45:41 UTC 2012


On 02-11-12 14:00 , Ben Bucksch wrote:
> Ownership:
> Given that Mozilla Corp has removed most funding, and the current 
> owners can no longer invest as much time, please actively hand over 
> ownership to volunteer contributors *now*. We have a number of people 
> who have proven that they are interested in Thunderbird development, 
> and shown long-term commitment, and proven coding skills and good 
> judgment. There's no need to wait any further, please approve the new 
> owners now. I am particularly thinking of aceman and protz, but also 
> jcramner, rkent and a number of others.
>
> I can also see a little bit of fresh air going through TB, good 
> decisions are made, volunteers focus on valuable things like outgoing 
> filters. This is great and gives me a bit of hope. But to use that 
> momentum, we need to put those good contributors actually in charge, 
> both to allow them to use the momentum they have now, and to keep them 
> long-term.
 From personal experience, we would be doing them a much larger favour 
by letting them remain contributors instead of forcing them to take over 
the code reviews and endless arguing about direction. ;)

(But, as I've said before, if someone else feels like they want to take 
over as the UX lead, I would be happy to step down and get back to 
fixing things. On the other hand, at this point, I'm a volunteer, so 
perhaps I should keep the role…)

Which kind of brings me to my main point. Aceman, protz, jcranmer, 
rkent, do any of you actually want to be the module owners for 
Thunderbird, or would you rather continue fixing things and driving the 
direction of Thunderbird by doing the work you're interested in?
> Money:
> Please define "engagement".
> I wholly disagree with the sentence "Therefore, paid-for development 
> should not be considered.". I think that development is (apart from 
> servers and machines) the most valuable that an open source project 
> can invest in. I understand the political side, but the module owners 
> just need to agree among themselves, and I think they can.
I agree that development is one of the most important things a company 
can invest in an open source project, but I don't think that module 
owners will be able to overrule Mozilla's decision in this case, and so 
not considering paid-for (by Mozilla) development seems like the best 
option available.

(Think about it this way: If Mozilla was going to pay for Thunderbird 
feature development, why would they be removing paid-for developers?)
> ISPDB:
> "ispdb expected to be brought up to replace the static files for 
> autoconfig."
> I disagree here, I think the static approach using SVN we have right 
> now is more secure for the high-value sites that we currently have.
As long as the security team is happy with the ISPDB code, I don't see 
what the problem with switching is.

Later,
Blake.

-- 
Blake Winton   UX Engineer
bwinton at mozilla.com




More information about the tb-planning mailing list