Governance and Release Model updates
gerv at mozilla.org
Wed Nov 14 10:44:19 UTC 2012
On 14/11/12 10:33, acelists at atlas.sk wrote:
> I think this is an important point. Who decides what gets upstreamed?
> The module owners (for now). They will largely not be Mozilla
> employees. What if they become Swanfox employees? Then they can push
> anything Swanfox needs. I understand that then Mozilla would not be
> happy to have such a uncontrollable product under its brand.
It is not necessarily a problem to have module owners be employees of
other companies; in fact, it's something Mozilla would like to see more
of. However, those people must understand that they wear two hats. If
someone is abusing their MO position for the benefit of their employer,
then there are complaint channels within Mozilla to raise that issue.
But I'm not aware of it ever having happened.
> On the other hand of Mozilla has any control of the module owners (or
> they are independent as today), how can Swanfox really provide any
> services or even contracts? There is no guarantee the Swanfox code
> gets upstream. They can push addons or a forked release (but not
> Mozilla branded).
That is the issue. Swanfox would want to be able to make guarantees to
its customers, but it cannot guarantee the content of a particular TB
release. So it would probably want to do its own releases, unless it
could use an addon to bridge the gap. Hence the branding question.
More information about the tb-planning