<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/22/2012 6:47 PM, Blake Winton
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5085F71F.3020706@mozilla.com" type="cite">On
22-10-12 19:48 , Kent James wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">3) The module list is directly controlled
by Mozilla insiders, and not my the broader community of people
who contribute to Thunderbird. <br>
</blockquote>
For my part, if people feel that I'm a Mozilla insider, and would
like to take over as the UX Lead module owner, I would be happy to
step down in order to strengthen the community (assuming, of
course, that the rest of the community is okay with the new
person). <br>
<br>
Later, <br>
Blake. <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
The "Mozilla insiders" that I was talking about are the owners and
peers of the "Module Ownership System" module, which has the
responsibility according to <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/Activities#Module_Ownership_System">https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/Activities#Module_Ownership_System</a>
to be:<br>
<ul>
<li> Filling vacant roles where appropriate </li>
<li> Ensuring module owners are fulfilling their responsibilities,
and replacing those who are not </li>
<li> Creating and staffing new modules where new parts of the
project evolve. </li>
<li> Figuring out what to do if a module isn't getting enough
attention </li>
<li> Resolving conflicts among module owners</li>
</ul>
That list is Brendan Eich, Stuart Parmenter, Dan Mosedale, Robert
Kaiser, Mike Connor, David Barron, Frank Hecker, and Mitchell Baker.
I just don't think that is the best list of people to, for example,
decide that a Thunderbird Marketing module is needed, fill that
role, and ensure that the module owner is fulfilling their
responsibilities. They simply are not going to do that. That is not
meant to be an anti-Mozilla statement, it's just that Mozilla no
longer has the same passion for Thunderbird that I think exists in
the broader list of significant contributors. We need to do what we
can to empower and inspire that broader group. Giving them a real
say in the future of the product is part of that.<br>
<br>
I also had no intention of implying that current or former Mozilla
staff are somehow to be discounted in all of this. I think we are
all appreciative that Mozilla is providing staff for the certain
aspects of Thunderbird, and that some people who are currently
working for Mozilla in other capacities continue to want to be
involved. I'm hoping Bryan that you and other Mozilla staff will
continue to be involved, and that you can continue to do the roles
in the future that you have done in the past.<br>
<br>
But you have asked why it is important to know who is or is not
Mozilla staff. The main reason for this is that the degree of
participation in Thunderbird has often changed dramatically for
individuals when they become Mozilla staff, and when they stop being
staff (or stop being assigned to Thunderbird), so in trying to
anticipate participation levels in the future, these changes are
important to know. The participation of people like Wayne and I are
driven by entirely different issues than, say, asuth or Irving. This
is not meant to imply that Mozilla people are either more or less
welcome in leadership roles.<br>
<br>
:rkent <br>
</body>
</html>