Positive, neutral, and negative positions (mozilla#680)

* Update position taxonomy

For the curious, jq does a decent job here.

```bash
jq '.[].mozPosition |= if . == "important" then "positive" else if . == "worth prototyping" then "positive" else if . == "non-harmful" then "neutral" else if . == "harmful" then "negative" else . end end end end' activities.json
```

* Fix positions in index.html

* Provide more context on positions in README

* Fix misimpression

* of

* Revert \u2019

* We sometimes don't form a view

CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
-
 # How Can I Help?
 
 We welcome contributions from the Mozilla community about its position on Web specifications.
@@ -111,16 +110,16 @@ an explanation of how the proposal addresses the problem;
 and how the proposal might affect the system as a whole.
 Issues should only provide a high-level summary of this information in a couple of sentences at most.
 
-Please focus your comments on bringing new information about a specification. 
+Please focus your comments on bringing new information about a specification.
 
 If you want to express support for a specification, the best way to do that is using [Github
 reactions](https://github.com/blog/2119-add-reactions-to-pull-requests-issues-and-comments) on the
 issue or a specific comment.
 
-If you want to ask about (or contribute to) Firefox support for a specification, please use 
+If you want to ask about (or contribute to) Firefox support for a specification, please use
 the respective Bugzilla bug, linked with a wrench 🔧 icon in the standards-position dashboard entry.
 
-If an issue becomes overwhelmed by excessive advocacy or other off-topic comments, 
+If an issue becomes overwhelmed by excessive advocacy or other off-topic comments,
 comments might be hidden, edited, or deleted, and the issue might be locked.
 
 ### For Mozilla's Subject-Matter Experts
@@ -148,7 +147,7 @@ discussions that should happen in the standards body's normal discussion mechani
 to happen instead in the standards-positions issue.
 When it makes sense to do so,
 it's good to raise issues through the normal issue trackers for the proposal.
-However, when doing so, it's worth being careful to avoid giving a *misimpression*
+However, when doing so, it's worth being careful to avoid giving a *false impression*
 that engagement in the discussion constitutes support.
 In some cases, avoiding this impression may require having some of the discussion in the standards-positions issue.
 However, in many cases that can be avoided
@@ -167,4 +166,3 @@ in the issue itself
 and limit the discussion in the pull request
 to the details of making the change to `activities.json`,
 and accurately communicating the consensus in the issue.
-

README.md

@@ -13,20 +13,32 @@ elsewhere too.
 Having a clear Mozilla position on these specifications helps us align our thinking and communicate
 it clearly to these standards bodies, as well as other browsers.
 
-*See our [contribution guidelines](CONTRIBUTING.md) for information about how you can participate.*
-
 Implementation status (or even intention) isn't tracked here; see [dev-platform](https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/g/dev-platform/).
 
 ### Possible Specification Positions
 
-The currently possible positions are:
+We will seek to apply one of three labels to new specifications:
+
+- `positive` - Mozilla regards this work as a potential improvement to the web.
+- `neutral` - Mozilla is not convinced of the merits of this work, but does not see any significant negative potential.
+- `negative` - Mozilla believes that pursuing this work in its current form would not be good for the web.
+
+These positions will be based on our best assessment of the current state of the specification and
+the potential for it to benefit our users and the web as a whole.  We consider the intended purpose
+and the design fundamentals of each specification.  Incomplete documentation, minor issues, or lack of
+interoperability testing are not reasons for a negative position, provided that intent is clear.
+
+We might also use the following labels for specifications where we have not formed a position:
 
-- `under consideration` - Mozilla's position on this specification is being discussed.
-- `important` - This specification is conceptually good and is important to Mozilla.
-- `worth prototyping` - Mozilla sees this specification as conceptually good, and worth prototyping, getting feedback on its value, and iterating.
-- `non-harmful` - Mozilla does not see this specification as harmful, but is not convinced that it is a good approach or worth working on.
-- `defer` - Mozilla does not intend to look at this specification at all in the near future.
-- `harmful` - Mozilla considers this specification to be harmful in its current state.
+- `defer` - Mozilla takes no position on this work.
+- `under consideration` - Mozilla has not taken a position on this work and is gathering more information.
 
-Note that these positions do not address whether Mozilla will commit resources to a specification,
-nor does it commit Mozilla to implementing them.
+### What about Firefox?
+
+A position here does not address whether Mozilla will commit resources to developing a
+specification. In particular, taking a position does not commit Mozilla to implementing a
+specification in Firefox.
+
+## Requesting a Position
+
+*See our [contribution guidelines](CONTRIBUTING.md) for information about how you can participate.*