IMO it’s actually ok that Mozilla is a company and some of its activities will be proprietary. I don’t expect the search deals to be operated through community for example. But that doesn’t mean abandoning open governance entirely!
-
-
Replying to @littlecalculist @fantasai
Distinguishing proprietary products from community products should mean a net *increase* in openness, not a regression.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @littlecalculist @fantasai
I should be quiet since I’m not there. I just mostly wanted to thank you for advocating for increased community ownership
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @littlecalculist @fantasai
Nice discussion. never heard “Open by Identity”, but feels worth re-establishing. My XP with “Open by Default” was Firefox OS. we worked openly (github, wikis, discourse), but lacked framework and accountability for accepting contributions. open requires understanding why && how
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mikehenrty @littlecalculist
“Open by Identity” answers why: you simply do not draw a distinction between outside contributors and internal ones, they are all part of your team. Facilitating your teammate's work is part of your job, so of course you help each other. The how comes out of that motivation.
4 replies 3 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @fantasai @littlecalculist
when starting new projects i tend to think: “we’re mozilla, we should do this openly.” but there is (sometimes significant) overhead in doing open right. one of the questions i’ve starting asking more is: should this project be open yet? do you have thoughts on experimentation?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mikehenrty @littlecalculist
Choose your experiment team based on who's the right person, not who's under the same manager? :) That may end up being just a few internal people. But as you get to know more contributors, asking yourself that question will make that list cross over.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fantasai @littlecalculist
for me managers never factor into it. it’s more like, “should i put this on mozilla github if i’m not ready to support more contributors (teammates)?” maybe strawman to u, but “Open by default” can lead to less intention and consequently less respect for experiment contributors
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mikehenrty @fantasai
Never ever ever ever ever use a company's github org. Create a separate GitHub org for the project.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Relatedly, putting code on GitHub (outside of the Mozilla org) has less intrinsic overhead than you expect. You can do experiments in plain sight, and the costs start to accrue as you get users. At that point, the benefits start to accrue as well.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
But having it be open means the overhead of telling individual people about it is low (compared to adding perms to a private account) and you can start to build a little community of users around it.
-
-
Replying to @wycats @littlecalculist and
I like the idea of using permissioning (scope and granularity) as a measure of open/closed-ness. Is a project default open or closed?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joewest @littlecalculist and
That's a metric and so is "how much does governance/decisionmaking of an open source project mirror the internal hierarchy of another entity" The more mirroring, the less open.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.