The reason could be embarrassing. But then, arenāt there many embarrassing things everyone has to face. Pull Requests are publicly made. Bug reports are publicly made. One may say these are not about the individualās personal qualities. Fair enough.
But then, is there a way to make things transparent without the specifics of each application being made transparent. Can there be a list of people who applied and people who are pending and people who were rejected? Can there be statistics that can be released? Can there be objective ways one can be rejected/accepted so that āreasonsā are removed from the equation altogether? Those, I think, are questions worth asking.
I became a Rep about 7.5 months ago and while I havenāt talked a lot about my experience as a Rep, I do see this as an opportunity to give my take on all the good/bad things youāve said about the Program. I thought of ignoring this at first, but I felt the need to answer this since I saw no other Rep taking a stand here and I donāt imagine my Community as one of those where questions go unanswered.
Iām not entirely sure what happened there, but Iāve been there. An application I endorsed got rejected as well. Not just that, I have been rejected two times before I ācracked the codeā and realized that not Documenting my activities in a clear way was the issue. I corrected that, and I got in! Now I know that the replies arenāt very pleasing where they say that your experience isnāt enough, even after years of Contribution, and Iād say that it could be better.
Honestly, thatās exactly why I got into the FSA program and I happen to fell in love with the mission we have! I often talk about Mozillaās mission and make sure that everyone reads Mozillaās Manifesto before they get in. Itās a choice for you to stay, you can take the title and go away - Iām fine with that too.
I completely agree.
I donāt think it is in their hands. I also feel that itās unfair to comment on someone elseās life and how they handle it. In a perfect world, even I would want to do this all my life, but I wouldnāt know when life slips past me and I wouldnāt be able to focus this way. People grow old, priorities change.
People may even want to fight for this mission, but we donāt know what goes on in a personās life. After all, the Reps Program is a Volunteer role and so are the responsibilities around it.
stop being so arrogant.
I have no idea who this is addressed to.
stop rejecting sincere contributors for the reps program.
I think the rejections could be more specific, or there can be more discussion around it.
stop this secrecy around the reps program.
make the events related bugs open. (Why canāt I see how much money is being requested for events? Why canāt I see how much swag is being requested and why they arenāt getting shipped?)
I think we could go for that, I really donāt think whatās the issue with this being open to all. If not everyone, the Reps at least. You can even ask for getting ccād for that bug if youāre involved in that event.
make the applications to be rep bug open (Why canāt I see who endorsed a rep)
I donāt see the need for anyone to see someone elseās application, or even who endorsed who. Iād like to ask you, why do you need that information?
make the other bugs that have nothing to do with NDA-ed information open.
can you give me a couple of examples?
ask for feedback about the reps program to the wider community. (I was rude enough to start a thread here. Not all people would be)
I donāt think this is rude, asking questions is a good thing.
have better accountability structures for reps
I agree with that, the role is not very well defined along with what are we accountable for. It could be more clear with examples as well.
transparency to the community (like opening the bugs above)
Since itās not one Mozilla India anymore, within the regional communities it can be open within.
open forum to discuss issues in the reps program (the suggestion now is to email the reps council. The reps council is elected by the reps themselves and the emails that are sent there are like they are sent to black holes)
I donāt think thatās true. I have gotten replies to the issues that I raised.
Iām glad that someone is talking about their issues openly. I want to invite you to become a Rep and Iām pretty sure that you can make a difference. Iām committed to doing as much as I can, for as long as I can dedicate my time to this program and look for solutions instead of problems and implement them.
Thank you for not ignoring. I believe the greatest insult someone can be given is ignoring them. As that dehumanizes them. Thank you for giving me that respect.
I believe there shouldnāt be such a ācodeā to ācrackā. Even if there is, that should be public knowledge.
What you do is amazing. I donāt believe at all that everyone has to have the same amount of energy towards the reps program all the time. My point is that we maybe doing something wrong when a lot of reps are not having energy towards the reps program. Perhaps we make people wait too long? Like you had to apply thrice. Thatās valuable time lost as not rep. Imagine by the time you became a rep if your life priorities had changed. Could that be happening to a lot of people?
To the entire reps program. The reps program rejecting people like you twice is proof enough of what I call āarroganceā. A humble program would have āacceptā by default. A humble program will try to find reasons to accept people than find reasons to reject people. A humble program will find ways to make all applicants acceptable.
Thatās a good first step.
I second this.
It is a general trend in transparency. The question should not be on me. The question should be āwhy hide?ā One point Iāve heard is that people get personally attacked for rejecting applications. If things like that are happening, we need to find ways around that, not make things secret.
To give you a specific example why it is fair to ask who endorses whom, Iāve seen nepotism in the reps program. Iāve seen someone get their girlfriend on the reps program and fly them around through reps program. People will ask me āreport that to councilā. But thatās not the point. We should build systems where such things arenāt possible. It is wrong to blame individuals.
I donāt know the answer to this. The point is raised in the general bargain of making all things open by default.
Do you not see that as a bigger problem? Some people get replies and some people donāt. Who knows who doesnāt get replies? Thatās what calls for an open forum.
There are plenty of solutions being suggested. It is when people look at solutions as problems that they canāt see them as solutions.
I donāt know why I have to join the reps program to do any of the things Iām doing for Mozilla. I do see reps as an open program. And therefore, for me to suggest modifications to the program, I donāt have to be a rep.
Making this open will be an example for other applicants to know whether they meet the requirements, resulting in people screening their own applications.
It is a form of feedback, thereās no shame in being rejected for whatever the reason be if itās a valid reason.
I dont see how rejecting an application can be embarassing to the assessor.
Providing anonymous feedback and acceptance status would help here. The assessor is not identifiable and they just mention their feedback as āEvaluator1: Their feedback. Evaluator2: Their feedback ā¦ā
Applicants will think twice before lying on their application if it is made open and the evaluation is done openly.
Something like this would be hindered if the application process is transparent.
Why shouldnāt anybody be able to see this information?
Whatās in an application that is to be hidden from the public?
Why should anybody be concerned about everybody knowing who theyāre endorsing? If anybody wants it to be a secret, there is something concerning here.
I agree, that should be something which couldāve been asked. Thatās why I said that the replies couldāve been better.
Thatās a very valid point, but itās not completely clear to the reviewer as well. When I rethink it, I think that the application questions could ask more and better questions.
While I get it, and would love to say yes. A solution is to try to gain more visibility as a Mozillian so that itās much more clear. The very fact that the reviewer was unaware of my work as a Mozillian, and I had to write it in a document add all the links with the dates could have been avoided. I donāt expect them to know who I am; it can be more about my work as a Volunteer which would get me to become a Representative.
Itās an application, more like an interview, which cannot be in open. Why hide seems like a valid question generally, but the whole Reps application is a process where during the 3-month probation period you go back-and-forth on your plans and discuss progress. I donāt mind if thatās open to anyone right now, but I would have then. I would have been a bit scared to be judged on āhow my vision of the Community is? what if itās wrong? will people talk about it? did i not work enough to become a Rep?ā
I am definitely not in favour of the Reps Application being open to all.
But thatās true for anywhere, no? That happens with jobs as well, A refers his girlfrend B to get them there with a salary hike and everything. Getting in is not an issue as long as your work is priority, abusing the Community fund is not okay. If that still happens, Iām pretty sure that the review team can and will take care of it.
Systems are meant to streamline it, people are meant to safeguard it.
Thatās a good example, definitely something like that.
If thatās the case really, it makes sense.
For suggesting modifications you may not but for implementation, you should.
Itās an application, more like an interview, which cannot be in open. Why hide seems like a valid question generally, but the whole Reps application is a process where during the 3-month probation period you go back-and-forth on your plans and discuss progress. I donāt mind if thatās open to anyone right now, but I would have then. I would have been a bit scared to be judged on āhow my vision of the Community is? what if itās wrong? will people talk about it? did i not work enough to become a Rep?ā Nobody should be judged on that, or feel like theyāre being judged on something thatās no one elseās business.
I said that I donāt see the need. Iām not protesting anything here.
Everyoneās not opaque, Shreevari.
Weāre too much getting sucked into the existing process that we fail to see the bigger picture here. What is the reps program? It is a program for mozillians to gain access to tools that are required for efficiently mobilizing communities.
Why should there be an interview for this? What is the purpose of an interview?
In Reps SOP it is called a screening. Who can do a screening? Who should do the screening?
If reps are community mobilizers, should they also be accountable to the same communities? Should they be open to the same communities?
Look at US Presidential election. Do candidates talk about their plans and promise things to the community they are accountable to?
If potential reps feel scared about being judged about their vision of the community, how will they make that vision happen in the community?
All leaders should agree to a standard by which they can be held
Staff & community should have a way to hold leaders accountable
Mozilla should enforce the Community Participation Guidelines consistently and strictly
All leaders should be validated by the community members who are directly working in the same area
All leaders should be aware that they represent the organization
All leaders should follow a shared framework for decision making
All leaders should be active and stay active for the duration of their term
How much of that is true for reps? Are reps not volunteer leaders?
How can reps be āvalidated by the community members who are directly working in the same areaā if their applications are not open?
How can community āhave a way to hold leaders accountableā if their vision is not public?
Are reps not leaders?
(Iām extremely tempted to create another thread to ask that the volunteer leadership principles be applied to the reps program, but Iāll desist from doing so till a week from now)
I donāt know if I will be heard any differently if I make these comments as a rep. I am talking about design of the program itself and the implementation of these things have to be done by program leaders.
Yes, the community will definitely talk about it, but they will talk to you about it. This opens the gates for open feedback. Itās essential if the applicant wants to learn and improve. Hereās an example of a canvas that Open Leaders create along with their vision and invite feedback in the open. I think OL is proof enough that an applicant would benefit from open feedback and move towards losing insecurities.
This is a question that applicants should ask themselves before applying. They can view other applications and figure out if they have worked enough yet to applyā¦but the applications are not open currently! Previous applications will act as a reference to new applicants and guide them better.
When I asked āWhy should anybody be concerned about everybody knowing who theyāre endorsing?ā, I didnāt mean you, I meant to say why should anybody be scared to endorse in the open. Sorry if I was unclear about this.
I didnāt mean to say everyone is opaque. If everybody would love the world to know what they think about a reps applicant, thereās no harm in making the endorsements public.
When we started the program, application bugs were open and anyone was able to read and comment them.
I want to point out that one of the biggest problems we had in the past is that people were abusing these applications being open to bully the applicant (so they retire their application) or the people reviewing it (so they approve it). This was unacceptable and Council decided to close the applications, this was really not helping and frustrating everyone.
During the past two years the council and and on-boarding team have been improving the process to make it easier and more aligned with the program goals.
Provide a clear criteria for applying (which is less strict that in the past).
Have an on-boarding team to evaluate applications based on objective requirements (instead of opinions) and be able to explain decisions.
Commitment to orient people who donāt meet the requirements to grow and be able to fit them in the future.
Help the applicant run through an automated learning process before fully become a rep (training, orientation period and warm-up activities)
Focus our efforts on the people that showed commitment by doing the training and the warmup activities.
All this process has always been documented to provide the right expectations, if someone applying doesnāt agree with the initial evaluation, Council has always been there to listen and explain, based on the process (not just feelings or opinions)
If you have suggestion about how to improve the process, we would like to know, but I would suggest not to jump into quick solutions without fully understanding whatās the current problem and why it is a problem, or based on one case you disagree with (which I invite to ask Council if you were the applicant and you didnāt understand the resolution).
How did council arrive at the conclusion that making bugs private is the best way to avoid bullying? Isnāt that running away from the problem of bullying? Imagine there is bullying that happens on reps discourse. Would the discourse be made private?
I imagine back then the community participation guidelines was not in place. Now that the CPG is in place, bullying can be unacceptable.
Will that not address the problem the council was trying to solve by making the bugs private?
Would you be willing to discuss how these criteria can be improved? If yes,
āThe applicant needs to be active within Mozilla for at least 6 monthsā
I think this is getting applied in a manner that makes the criteria very strict. What is the purpose of this criteria? Is it to ensure that people are familiar with mozillaās workings? If thatās the case, how would you want to measure this āactivityā for 6 months? Currently people are being asked for links to prove that they have been active in the last 6 months. (I think that is a misreading of the criteria - the wiki reads active for 6 months, not active in the last 6 months).
What if links arenāt practical? Arenāt there other ways to prove someone has been engaging with mozilla for 6 months?
How is the on-boarding team able to assess the criteria from a distance? Do on-boarding team have members from local communities who can vouch for the applicantās activity or knowledge about mozillaās mission?
Is this happening in real? Does on-boarding team have the time/resources to effectively orient people who donāt meet the requirements to grow and be able to fit them in the future?
Are they explaining their decisions elaborately such that people are able to instantly understand why they were rejected?
I suppose this is good. Iāve no experience to talk about this.
The documentation may not be up to date (āCurrently we are planning to run this screening every 2 weeks.ā) or relevant.
These are all suggestions on improving itself that are coming. It is based on my understanding of the problem. If you think thereās no problem and I think thereās a problem, thereās a disagreement. I think good leadership would proactively reach out to find out if thereās actually a problem or not.
I invite you to ask the community (of mozillians) if there is a problem or you donāt understand what the problem is.
We tried to solve this for years, and the only effective solution was to create a safe space for people to apply and get feedback, when someone becomes a Rep is public and we have enabled channels to ask when you donāt agree with the process.
Consider putting yourself into other peopleās shoes, you might feel safe in an open space, but this is not the case for a lot of people with different personality types or personal situations. Some people will never apply to the program if they know people can bully them (even when in the past we were shutting down these behaviors, they already intimidated people).
What is the problem you are trying to solve by suggesting we should open application bugs?
Iām hearing about transparency and accountability, and I think that can be achieved without having to expose certain private iterations between people that we know are very likely to be abused by others.
Because if every Mozillian would be able to do all of it, it would be chaos. There are around 11,000 Mozillians all around the world. Reps donāt just gain access, they earn it through their contributions towards the Community as a Mozillian as against to being completely open where you can just ask for a Swag or Budget Request. While I understand that the Reps Program has brought a few gate-keeping opportunities, itās much more organized and structured and well, recognizing these Community Leaders to help them do better is important which cannot be done among 11,000 Mozillians, but it can be done among 240 Reps.
Iām not sure if you know this but people who are in the Onboarding team are trained to Screen new applications and the team from Mozilla usually monitors all of it.
They should be, thatās why I am in favor of accountable roles. Not everything is a mess, really. The accountability part seems like it is, itās not a very well defined role.
Iām not sure what are you trying to point out here. They do have debates about their plans and policies, there are democratic debates going on for the last few months. If youāre saying that screening or the planning process is wrong, I would say that itās a great identifier for leaders.
Exactly, and thatās why it shouldnāt be open for all. I felt more confident when itās 1-on-1.
Most of it is true for Reps. As far as I know, Iām focused on building more and more Community Leaders who love the Mozilla mission and can help build the Community with the values that Mozilla stands for.
The same answer for both of these, A review framework can help keep this in check, but a lot of Reps Mentors have gone inactive at the same time which doesnāt help anyone.
Reps are leaders who are driven by a collective mission.
Criticism is the backbone of an Open Community. It is after all, for the people, by the people.
Iām here talking as a Rep and how I see it is that a few of these questions are very valid, and I have discovered that a Volunteer-run Community is a two-way street. Even if they fix the framework, it would still need sincere volunteers to help them work for the betterment of the Community. To keep those Volunteers in check, we need all the Mentors active and to remove the inactive ones and make space for new ones to come in, the Council is taking steps towards it. The problem with removing inactive Contributors is that even the Leaders canāt be too tight with them since itās a Volunteer role after all.
