On 9/11/12 10:32 PM, David Bruant wrote:
Would you work on what has been agreed on?
Maybe.
Would I spend every possible moment working on what has been agreed on,
if I disagree with it? Perhaps not.
Mozilla does not own its contributors, nor should it. Thought it sounds
to me like you think it should, and that someone who is not committed to
spending all their free time on whatever the current best guess is for
advancing the mission should not be welcomed. I, personally, think
that's a terrible idea.
Now maybe that's not what you meant. But that's what it came across as,
at least to me. Sounds like to Justin too.
Agreeing on priorities as a group doesn't necessarily mean that every
single individual agrees with every single decision made by the group.
Agreeing on priorities, in the abstract, doesn't mean that people should
drop everything else.
I think the fact that Mozilla cultivates groups with heterogeneous
priorities is a great strength. For example, Firefox was created by
volunteers who didn't agree with MoCo's direction at the time.
I'm missing that part of history. Can you expand on that? At the time,
were both volunteers and MoCo sharing the same values?
At the time, MoCo did not exist.
Note that I don't think you need this "everyone must agree on
priorities" strawman to support your main point which is that
priority-setting is very opaque right now.
-Boris
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
