On 9/12/12 2:07 PM, David Bruant wrote:
I agree with you here. I didn't mean what you're describing. I'm actually puzzled you're coming to such an interpretation just based on what I wrote. Being myself just a volunteer, I wouldn't even follow myself what you describe, I think.
I really hoped I was misunderstanding you, yes.
Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think what you wrote above about "owning contributors" is something Mozilla is (understandably) frightened to be accused of.
I don't think it's even fear of accusations. I think it's just basic human interaction. I don't want to be in a position where I feel my work is unwelcome (been there, done that), and I don't want to put someone else in that position either.
But what about volunteers who want to get involved more deeply?
They should. Easier said then done, I know. But the hard parts are not entirely volunteer-specific.
Are they doomed to stay outside of the room of people who make strategic decisions?
I think there's a basic assumption here: that there is such a room. I'm not sure there is. I think that the major strategic shifts I've seen in this project in the last 11 years have all started with a random small group with a vision that then goes around convincing others piecemeal.
Maybe there should be more formal strategic planning, of course!
Do they have to be hired to be part of strategic discussions?
Just fyi, I've been both a volunteer and an employee, and I don't think there was any change in my ability to contribute to strategic discussion when I was hired. In some aspects of strategy, it's really easy to get involved as a volunteer or employee. In some aspects of strategy it's hard to be involved as a volunteer or employee.
Talking with other contributors, it is my understanding that a lot of people are frustrated to not be included in any important decision discussion.
This is not limited to volunteer contributors, I should not. I'm assuming you implied that by your use of unqualified "contributor", which I applaud.
Not that they want to necessarily make the decisions, but they just feel that's they're being imposed something.
That's the key issue, yes. This is the part I was having problems with in your older posts in this thread, actually. Imposition of goals or values is just as bad as imposition of strategic direction....
Also, every single contributor was holding his/her breath during the last MozCampEU last November in Berlin, not knowing what would happen to Mozilla financially at the end of the partnership with Google.
Again, applies to "contributors" in general, as you say.
But money really is a sensitive topic and to my knowledge, currently, volunteers are all excluded from any discussion that would relate to money.
I don't think they're any more excluded than employees, just FYI. I know if I were interested in discussing the topic I'd start by mailing people (which ones, I'm not quite certain yet, because I haven't put thought into it!) and offering my thoughts. Perhaps non-employees feel like this is not an option open for them? If so, that's definitely something we should fix. I certainly didn't have that feeling when I wasn't an employee...
I don't think that everyone must agree on priorities, but I'm confident involving as many people as possible early in the decision-making process will end up in a better alignment in priorities
That's possible, yes. Again, I think strategic decisions seem to arise out of discussions that are only viewed as strategic after the fact.
-Boris _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
