Module owner and peerage refresh?

Gervase Markham gerv at
Mon Jul 14 08:58:03 UTC 2014

On 11/07/14 19:17, Josiah Bruner wrote:
> I've been thinking a similar thing as well. Mozilla currently seems to
> have two main "groups" to help organize events and focus their
> attention: "Employees" and "Volunteers".

I think you're coming at this from the wrong angle. While that division
does exist, it's not there to help organize events and focus attention.
In fact, the less we think about this division, the better. We should
instead divide people by their level of commitment and by their
expertise and area of work.

> Employes breaks down into the
> different areas: Engineering, UX, Design, Marketing, and each of those
> breaks down. So every employee knows exactly what their position is and
> what they are responsible for and they can explain it to others.

There is no reason why a volunteer could not consider themselves (and be
considered by others) part of Engineering.

This does touch a bit on the fact that Mozilla's governance structures
need reform and updating, but at least in engineering, they still exist.
The module ownership system is the project's governance structure for
engineering, and significant contributors should have a place in it, as
an owner or peer.

> Volunteers though really only break down to what you (Kent) mentioned;
> "Mozilla Rep", "Community Champion", etc. Privately, among the
> "Engineering" people, we give ourselves more useful titles ("Mailnews
> peer", "Compose Window Peer", "Theme Peer", etc), but that only helps
> other developers, not everyone else, and even for developers it gives a 
> very limited understanding...

What brings you to that conclusion?

If non-employees want to choose better titles for themselves, by
agreement with the module owner of their module, there's nothing
stopping that.

> Part of this is certainly because the majority of the volunteers aren't
> really exceptionally helpful or active (compared to the employees), so
> there really isn't a reason to. However, for us (and some Fx and SM
> volunteers) this is really annoying. When applying to events or other
> activities, the company can't really know how influential and necessary
> we are.

I think that if someone's contributions are not being recognised (as in,
noticed) then that's a problem. I don't think titles contribute
massively to the problem, although they probably do a bit.


More information about the tb-planning mailing list