Account confirmers, Anti-spam team, Confirmed users, Bureaucrats and Sysops emeriti
4,925
edits
Contribute/Trusted: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
This is a proposal for a social mechanism (informally known as the ' | This is a proposal for a social mechanism (informally known as the 'Family Responsibility system') to create a trusted subgroup of [http://blog.gerv.net/2013/10/what-does-mozillian-mean/ Mozillians]. Possible privileges for such a group include: | ||
* Gaining access to and the ability to discuss sensitive non-public Mozilla information | * Gaining access to and the ability to discuss sensitive non-public Mozilla information | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
==The Plan== | ==The Plan== | ||
We seed the group with, say, twenty or so people whose status as Mozillians is beyond doubt. (It doesn't really matter which 20.) We then say that anyone else can be admitted to the group if they are endorsed (I won't say "vouched", as it leads to mixup with the mozillians.org mechanism) by X existing members (proposed X: 2). And within the first N months (proposed N: 12), if that person is found to have broken a confidence or otherwise behaved in a way which leads to loss of privileges or access, the X people who vouched for them also lose those privileges, for a period of M months (proposed M: 3). Hence | We seed the group with, say, twenty or so people whose status as Mozillians is beyond doubt. (It doesn't really matter which 20.) We then say that anyone else can be admitted to the group if they are endorsed (I won't say "vouched", as it leads to mixup with the mozillians.org mechanism) by X existing members (proposed X: 2). And within the first N months (proposed N: 12), if that person is found to have broken a confidence or otherwise behaved in a way which leads to loss of privileges or access, the X people who vouched for them also lose those privileges, for a period of M months (proposed M: 3). Hence, 'Family Responsibility' - "if you let us down, the shame falls on you <i>and</i> your parents". | ||
This makes endorsing someone as 'trusted' an action with real downsides. This is intentional, because it is the only way to ensure that endorsements will be carefully considered, and people only endorse people they actively trust. Compare this with mozillians.org vouching. If I vouch for someone in mozillians.org and they later act highly inappropriately, nothing bad happens to me. There's no downside to me simply vouching for anyone who asks, which makes it very easy to get vouched for. In order to build a real web of trust, we need to change that. If I put something at risk by endorsing someone, then I will only endorse people who I trust already - i.e. the group becomes an encoding of existing trust relationships, which is the aim. | This makes endorsing someone as 'trusted' an action with real downsides. This is intentional, because it is the only way to ensure that endorsements will be carefully considered, and people only endorse people they actively trust. Compare this with mozillians.org vouching. If I vouch for someone in mozillians.org and they later act highly inappropriately, nothing bad happens to me. There's no downside to me simply vouching for anyone who asks, which makes it very easy to get vouched for. In order to build a real web of trust, we need to change that. If I put something at risk by endorsing someone, then I will only endorse people who I trust already - i.e. the group becomes an encoding of existing trust relationships, which is the aim. | ||