Mentoring isn’t worthless after all!

Standard

I enjoy talking to young companies (or proto-companies) about their projects. I do that with a few incubators and the like, and I consistently find it rewarding. I find myself always trying to tweak people’s product vision a bit, looking for a way to turn a “business idea” into something that will have deeper, human value — not just because I think it’s the moral thing to do, but because if you’re “just working for the man” (even if you are the man), then when things get tough, it’s going to be hard to get up in the morning. When you’re doing something that deeply resonates with people, and which either relies on positive human qualities or strengthens them, then I’m confident that your odds as an entrepreneur are better. Also because there are plenty of mentors who will do a better job of getting your social viral marketing plan in shape.

Sometimes I wonder whether I’m the only one getting value out of our conversations, but this blog post reassured me that at least sometimes I have an interesting impact: Do you really need a server? Build your minimum viable product entirely client-side.

I’m particularly interested by the fact that I wasn’t really trying to force them to think about the privacy advantages of client-centric development (I realize it’s hard for budding entrepreneurs to make that a priority), simply going for the pragmatics of it all. I’m so glad it’s working out for them.

What’s the lesson?

Standard

I’m not supposed to be in front of a computer right now. I’m supposed to be attending the Vancouver premiere of Tiffany Shlain’s Connected, in a fundraiser to benefit A Human Right.  This looked like a fun event, for a good cause.  So I bought two tickets, one for myself and one for my 14 year old son, who seemed really interested in the trailer, and who I was pretty sure would both enjoy and get a lot from the movie & discussion.  I was happy for Mozilla to sponsor the event, promoting it.

But, this is Vancouver, British Columbia, in North America, a continent where lawyers and fear have way too much sway on policy and clearly no firm grasp of reality.  In this particular case, the problem is that the venue — the swank Vancouver International Film Festival’s VanCity Theater has the audacity to serve wine and the like to its patrons.  As a wine and movie enthusiast, that seems like a delightful plan.  But apparently, this very civilized offering is seen by regulators as implying that the location is evidently such a den of iniquity that my kid would obviously be irretrievably harmed by the sight of some adults having a glass of wine. Of all the things that I worry about as a parent, this doesn’t make the top 1000.

This was mildly embarrassing for all concerned, and led to my son and I going home early and having a conversation about the puritanical roots of the Canadian legal system rather than the much more interesting discussion that I expect would have ensued after the movie.

Such a waste.

Somebody let me know how the show went?

Am I reading these trends right?

Standard

Let’s see… in the last few weeks, we have seen:

Facebook shifting the definition of the Open Graph and moving the locus of control about sharing from an actual user-initiated action (“share!”) to the terms of service that users agree to at “app installation time”. This will likely lead users to overshare, and many more websites to require facebook accounts.

Amazon building a new way of using the web which many fear will be a data mining engine that “acts on your behalf” as you do anything on the web, not just with Amazon sites. Until now, only regulated ISPs or government agencies had that level of access to our online activities.

Microsoft preparing a version of Windows which will demote third-party browsers and bake in support for a single-vendor appstore.

Google aggressively promoting their mostly closed social network on all of its properties.

(All of whom are basically following Apple’s lead on how to verticalize the world).

The threat models are fascinating too. According to the blogosphere, Facebook is feeling threatened by users shifting to mobile (read: iPhone); Google’s threatened by Facebook; Apple needs to figure out social; Everyone’s going to get bit by patents, but they all have huge cash reserves to apply to that problem.

This industry is heading in a direction that is sure to be full of fireworks, but I’m having a hard time seeing how normal people end up winning at the end.

If these trends continue, in a few years at most we’ll basically choose one of 3 or 4 vertical stacks to work in. Rich people will be able to afford to play in all of them (an iOS macphone, an android tablet, a kindle Plasma, a facebook TV, etc.).

Consumption will go up, free access will be contingent on actual consumption. Kindle people will have a heck of a time communicating with Apple people. Facebookers will make fun of Googlers. App developers will slowly realize that they’re the outsourced R&D department for the big 5, and success will be defined as being acquired for a few bucks rather than creating jobs or making the world a better place.

Consumers are part of the problem too, of course — we like simple, shiny, integrated solutions. We want freedom from choice more than we actually value choice.

The next generation will likely think of our notions of privacy, autonomy, and various freedoms as quaint or foolish, much like we look on our parents’ notions of decorum and modesty. Either that, or they’ll unplug and start to riot, because of the co-occuring global economic climate which, to put it bluntly, will suck for people who don’t have stock in said 5 companies.

So, that’s a pretty bleak assessment, and it tends to depress me. What’s the silver lining? I don’t have a very rosy picture yet, although I’m trying! I have a few proto-thoughts:

First, those five companies, while very impressive and influential, represent a tiny fraction of the creative, intellectual and even financial resources of the world. Furthermore, those companies are all US-based, which simply isn’t a stable configuration. So while those companies are defining extremely aggressive winner-take-all strategies, and executing for the most part exceedingly well, we should realize that there are way more of “us” than “them”.

Second, these companies all have competitors, and I expect always will. Even if there were no other market forces at play, these five will keep beating each other up forever. Mergers of giants might even be a good thing, given that those tend to destroy focus and operational excellence.

Third, I think that there is a growing shared understanding of what’s wrong with these trends from a public policy point of view. The internet, the web, were not intended to facilitate these empires, and I expect that over time, as John Gilmore said, “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” So somehow, we’ll figure out a way to take the bits of net life that truly matter, and extract those from the silos being built.

There are many projects in this general vein already under way, some with significant involvement from Mozilla. For example, we’re pushing hard on federating identity on the web, and teaching the web about apps and vice versa. I’m hopeful that we’ll also find ways to recognize friends and partners along the way. I’ve got a list in my head, but it’s probably worth building it out. If you have pointers to projects that touch on these issues, let me know in comments.

The Future of Messaging

Standard

The web has incredible potential to improve our lives even more than it already has.  I believe that nowhere else is this more true than in the space of personal communications.

Mitchell Baker, Chair of the Mozilla Foundation, today announced that Mozilla will be increasing our focus on messaging and communications on the web.  As part of this, here are some of the steps that we are taking.

We’re going to be consolidating the teams working on messaging on the Web and related topics like identity and contacts, by integrating the Mozilla Messaging team with Mozilla Labs.

People who have followed Mozilla Messaging are already aware of our first investments in this arena, such as the popular F1 add-on for Firefox, and the experimental Raindrop project.  The expanded Mozilla Labs team has more plans for both research and product initiatives in the field of online communications and social interactions on the Web, which we look forward to sharing.

Thunderbird users will likely be curious to know what this change means for them.  The short answer is almost nothing will change.  We’ll move pages around websites, but that will be the extent of the impact on Thunderbird users.  In particular, the Thunderbird team will remain a tight-knit self-contained product team with full responsibility for the stewardship, development and support of Thunderbird.  I’m continually proud of the Thunderbird team, as they continue to produce high quality releases on the platform that Firefox is continually improving, while supporting exciting developments like Blake Winton’s GetAnAccount, Jonathan Protzenko’s radical Conversations view add-on or Mike Conley’s Unity integration work to name a few.

I’ll still be managing the Thunderbird team, as well as lead our innovation efforts at the intersection of the Web and messaging.

When I told the team about this change, there was universal nodding — this is an obvious move for Mozilla.  I’ve had the chance to work with many people in all parts of Mozilla over the last few years, and I’ve never met a more competent or kinder group of passionate professionals, and I’ve never been more excited and optimistic about the chances of having impact, both personally and as a part of the fascinating group that is Mozilla.

Jonas Sicking, a superlative Mozilla developer, recently tweeted:

one of the most awesome things about the web is how it enables new ways of communication. What can we do to improve that even more?

That is a nice summary of our focus in the next phase.

Crowdsourcing thoughts

Standard

On Wednesday, I’m attending Remixology 2, an event put together by Fresh Media, on the topic of crowdsourcing.  In particular, I’ll somehow be the representative of the entire open web perspective on crowdsourcing (!), Alfred Hermida will be talking about the journalist’s perspective, and Leigh Christie will be there representing artists.  I’m hoping that the audience doesn’t expect any one of us to speak authoritatively on any topic, and that we can instead have a conversation.  Since talking to Hanna Cho about the event, I’ve had a couple of thoughts on the topic that I’m hoping I’ll be able to fit into that conversation.

Crowdsourcing, like most buzzwords, is loaded with too many meanings, and I rarely use it.  I’m more interested in figuring out how to leverage the internet to enable collaboration on a grand scale.  Everyone has experience with 1-1 collaboration, whether through email, shared writings spaces, voice calls, etc.  The internet has provided the technologies to make such collaboration radically cheaper and faster than before, and the biggest challenge it has brought have been widely discussed: we’re always connected, for better or worse; we’re always interrupted; the world is smaller; nobody knows you’re a dog.  All of which is old hat to anyone who’se spent any time online in the last couple of decades.

The advent of mass instant collaboration and mass participation is made possible by the same technologies, but I think we’re still in the earliest stages of figuring out both how to do it well, and what the societal impact will be.  I’m hoping we can talk about that a bit.

It’s easier than ever to spread a meme, and to recruit a population the size of a small army who are all interested or even passionate about your meme.  With ubiquitous communication systems (phones, laptops, cheap broadband, internet cafes, etc), social “viral” media  (twitter, facebook, chain letters, etc.), rich media production models (video on phones and youtube), it seems that viral messages spread like wildfire (of course there’s a massive selection bias: deliberately starting a wildfire is incredibly hard in practice).  Let’s grant that getting the word out is easy.  Depending on the topic, one can get the attention of a cohort of like-minded folks fairly easy (that’s 500 soldiers, if the roman army is a guide).  If any one of them has an hour or two to contribute, pretty soon we’re talking a person-year or more of effort, which can be a potent resource if focused!

The cost of building and running web sites has also plumetted, and the number of people capable of doing so is skyrocketing, which makes it easy (in theory) for anyone to create a place for these people to gather, discuss, coordinate, work, agitate, whatever.  Some will build dedicated websites, others will use shared tools like Facebook groups, mailing lists, etc.  In most countries, such gatherings are undetected, let alone regulated.  We now have mechanisms for coordination of group action.  The potential is seemingly unbounded.

Many online activities are virtually free.  Interestingly, even when there are real (or forecasted) costs to a project, the last few years have seen the maturation of many interesting micropayment systems.  The trendiest is Kickstarter, which somehow gathered the mindshare in the “let’s get together and fund X” world, and its most famous success is Diaspora, who raised $200k, which was 20 times what they asked for, just because they said they’d take on Facebook.  So even in the treacherous arena of cash, there are now funding models which seem to work (at least for small-scale efforts).  Thus, to the sheer hours of invested time, we can now add a few thousand dollars.

So now we have a few hundred people, excited about some idea.  There’s a website, and even a modest bank balance. To use the techy jargon, we’ve got scalable models for meme propagation, recruitment, coordination & communication, advocacy, marketing & PR, and funraising.  Awesome.

Now it’s time to actually do stuff.  In particular, it’s time to plan, schedule, prioritize, make decisions, commit some code, commit to something.  In my experience, that’s the part that we still don’t know how to scale.  Everyone in the army of volunteers has ideas about what should be done (but only a small percentage will actually have relevant skills or experience).  Everyone will have opinions about what words should be used, but only a small number will actually really listen to the other’s opinions.  If we’re not careful, we now have a large group of people who think share a goal, but who are not organized.  And that can be really hard to deal with, especially given that we’ve made it really easy for them to shout at each other.

Which leads to my main point, which is that the next challenge for mass collaboration and coordination over the internet isn’t going to be technological, but human.  Specifically, what will differentiate important projects from the rest are the people who can help groups of people achieve common goals.  That’s not a new task, but the cybernetic setting will require to adapt old skills and create new cultural norms.  Three skills at least are needed to facilitate that kind of coordination:

The first is some form of leadership.  Quite often, the initiator of the meme didn’t really intend to start a micro-movement.  She just tweeted something, or uploaded a ranty video, or wrote a scathing blog post.  And all of a sudden she is the center of attention from a bunch of strangers who “agree” and want to “do something about it”.  In that kind of situation, converting emotional energy into effective action will (I claim) depend on the emergence of a leader of some kind.  Which doesn’t mean a spokesperson, or a dictator (benevolent or not).  It just means someone who, using whatever means are appropriate for that group, can get the group focused, moving in a roughly consistent direction towards some vague approximation of a common goal.  Different groups of people will respond to different types of leadership, but I’m pretty sure all large groups need at least one individual they can anchor to.

The second is organizing.  The style of organization needed will vary wildly depending on the group, from simply taking notes to gardening a wiki to tweeting a lot, nagging, proofreading, testing.  But there is a yin to the leadership yang, and the people who are good at getting people excited are rarely the same who can remind them to uphold their commitments.

The third is what my friend David Eaves refers to as negotiation, or the process of seeking common interests among a set of potential collaborators, and building commitments and mutual trust along the way.  This skill is rarely explicitly discussed in many organizations, because most organizations have built-in power structures which have well understood tie-breakers (“the senior person decides”, “the client decides”) as well as clear consequences to disagreement (“you’re fired/demoted/etc.”, “this contract isn’t renewed”, “you’re not invited next time”, etc.).  Neither of these are as clear in a setting where peering and fraternity are assumed over hierarchy and management.  If I show up at your virtual event expecting to be treated like a peer, but it so happens that I misunderstood what your goal was, the odds are pretty good that one of us will frustrate or disappoint the other.  If we both care about our own visions, the odds of a flame war are high.  To avoid that, we need to clarify the goals up front and review them often.  We need to really explore everyone’s interests and both detect overlap and explore differences.  And we need to keep in mind everyone’s BATNA.  It’s work, but it’s the only way to actually draw from everyone’s strengths.  I think the open source / open web world is still a beginner in this arena, but I’m glad that we’re working on those muscles.

Of course, the technologist and UX thinker in me is keen to figure out whether we can design systems that help with these all-to-human (and all-too-fragile) tasks, build digital prostheses of a sort.  You can see baby steps emerging among the more “social” web apps of the day: the indicators of mood on support forums like getsatisfaction.com for example, let people emote quietly, and provide non-verbal cues to emotional state, which are all to often lost in textual communications.  Building interfaces that surface the people behind the comments leads, I think, to more humane conversations (one of Facebook’s brilliant early moves was to encourage/require “real names, real photos”).  There are also simple tricks: at Mozilla, we’ve also found that if one detects conflict, it’s usually a good idea to try and resolve it using private voice calls rather than prolonged, public, painful email discussions.

I’m sure that by Wednesday I’ll have other thoughts in my head which will push these out of the way, but I’m curious to see whether these thoughts resonate with people in other disciplines, or whether different cultures lead to radically different world views.

Tim O'Reilly on the future web wars

Standard

I’ve tended to limit my link referrals to my Twitter feed over the last year, but I wanted to advertise Tim O’Reilly’s latest post on this channel as well (it also feels great to have more than 100 characters to express myself!).  Tim explains well what the new battlegrounds for the future of the web are.  It’s a war that’s currently being fought with shiny discounted hardware, free access to proprietary data, and competing “privileged” interfaces to the web.  The stakes are huge, but oh-so-hard for people to grasp, as much of the mechanics of who wins what depend on economics which are far removed from the battleground:

  • People don’t pay transparently for mobile services or devices
  • People don’t pay for online news (although some surveys indicate many would)
  • People often end up “subscribing” to brands (Apple, Google, Facebook) and becoming brand consumers rather than active participants in their own digital life.  That delegation of trust is often pragmatic, but it’s worrisome if unchecked by alternatives.
  • The heterogeneity of the original internet can lead to an appearance of chaos, and many people prefer simpler, more uniform experiences.  Both technical and psychological factors encourage centralization of services with single providers.  Financially as well, “small, independent startups” have huge incentives to become part of one of the big centers of mass.

Finally, the huge psychological distance between the value of free services and the costs that funds them is one of the big topics that puzzle.  It applies to “how come I can get free map directions from Google but I have to pay to get them from TomTom?” as well as “how can I convince my neighbors that electing so-and-so to office will mean more tax revenue overall, which in turn will mean better schools?”.  In both cases, the number of steps between cost and service is huge, and coupling them tighter would destroy the huge advantages that centralization and scale offer.  (If I knew more about the derivatives crash I could make some pithy reference here).

I agree with Tim that “If you don’t want a repeat of the PC era, place your bets now on open systems. Don’t wait till it’s too late.”  I think he’d also agree that we need to think beyond code and copyright.  That’s like going to war with trucks but no tanks.  For the open, distributed, heterogeneous web to thrive, we need to incorporate thinking from a host of other fields, such as contract law, design, psychology, consumer behavior, brand marketing, and more.  Figuring out how to engage thinkers and leaders in those fields is likely one of the critical, still missing steps.

Tim O’Reilly on the future web wars

Standard

I’ve tended to limit my link referrals to my Twitter feed over the last year, but I wanted to advertise Tim O’Reilly’s latest post on this channel as well (it also feels great to have more than 100 characters to express myself!).  Tim explains well what the new battlegrounds for the future of the web are.  It’s a war that’s currently being fought with shiny discounted hardware, free access to proprietary data, and competing “privileged” interfaces to the web.  The stakes are huge, but oh-so-hard for people to grasp, as much of the mechanics of who wins what depend on economics which are far removed from the battleground:

  • People don’t pay transparently for mobile services or devices
  • People don’t pay for online news (although some surveys indicate many would)
  • People often end up “subscribing” to brands (Apple, Google, Facebook) and becoming brand consumers rather than active participants in their own digital life.  That delegation of trust is often pragmatic, but it’s worrisome if unchecked by alternatives.
  • The heterogeneity of the original internet can lead to an appearance of chaos, and many people prefer simpler, more uniform experiences.  Both technical and psychological factors encourage centralization of services with single providers.  Financially as well, “small, independent startups” have huge incentives to become part of one of the big centers of mass.

Finally, the huge psychological distance between the value of free services and the costs that funds them is one of the big topics that puzzle.  It applies to “how come I can get free map directions from Google but I have to pay to get them from TomTom?” as well as “how can I convince my neighbors that electing so-and-so to office will mean more tax revenue overall, which in turn will mean better schools?”.  In both cases, the number of steps between cost and service is huge, and coupling them tighter would destroy the huge advantages that centralization and scale offer.  (If I knew more about the derivatives crash I could make some pithy reference here).

I agree with Tim that “If you don’t want a repeat of the PC era, place your bets now on open systems. Don’t wait till it’s too late.”  I think he’d also agree that we need to think beyond code and copyright.  That’s like going to war with trucks but no tanks.  For the open, distributed, heterogeneous web to thrive, we need to incorporate thinking from a host of other fields, such as contract law, design, psychology, consumer behavior, brand marketing, and more.  Figuring out how to engage thinkers and leaders in those fields is likely one of the critical, still missing steps.

Thunderbird 3 beta 2

Standard

On the road to Thunderbird 3, another milestone — this time, Thunderbird 3 beta 2.

illustration

Why do beta releases?

Beta releases are funny things. They serve a few purposes. The first is to make sure that we periodically stabilize the code base, as without periodic ‘cooling’, it’s hard to get a handle on the quality of a piece of software. Betas also serve as deadlines, which are magical motivators for some people. Some of us will spend way too many hours staying up late in the night in order to “make a deadline”.

Betas for open source software are even more odd in that people interested in staying very involved with the project can use nightly builds, which are updated every day. I’ve been using nightly builds of Thunderbird for over a year, as have several thousand other users. As a user of nightlies as much as a project coordinator, by the time the beta is released to a wider audience, all the excitement is historical.

Another fascinating aspect of beta releases is that, because we know there will be another release, and because the purpose of the beta is to get a broader set of testers to shake out edge cases, we try to be conservative about slipping in major features at the last minute, as the odds of those features being polished in time are never what we hope they’ll be. So we routinely delay feature additions until the next cycle, to avoid dragging the beta validation process out. It’s an unpleasant, but unavoidable part of optimizing releases.

If we do our job right there, then by the time the beta ships, the features that have landed are free of major bugs. We of course can’t know that until we get feedback from the beta.

What’s in this release?

The most striking part of the release is the sheer volume of bug fixes. It’s not sexy work, it’s often the hardest work, but it’s very important. This list (of bug fixes and feature work, but mostly bug fixes) is impressive.

Of the features that have landed, I want to talk about two that many users could easily ignore: archiving, and the activity manager.

The archive feature is straightforwardly borrowed from GMail’s archive feature, which we think is great. The idea is that figuring out exactly which folder each message should be filed is a process that can take a lot of time and effort — something that wasn’t a real problem in the early days of email, but which becomes a real time sink with thousands of messages. With a good enough search engine, it’s easier for many users to simply “archive” the message (doesn’t really matter where), get it out of the way, and then rely on the search capability to find the message again.

In this beta, we’re half-way there. The archive feature is there if you want it, but you can also use the standard “file in a folder” method. Thanks to work we did before beta2, the archiving is fast, putting messages in per-month folders at the click of a buttton or a keystroke. The new fast global search hasn’t landed yet, but even our “old” cross-folder search mechanism has gotten a lot better.

I already love the feature — being able to select messages I don’t need to worry about anymore, hit ‘A’ and be done with them, saves me a lot of time and mental effort

The second feature worth highlighting is also not fully deployed, but already useful. The Activity Manager was born out of a recognition that Thunderbird 2 is pretty bad at telling you what it’s doing. It says a lot of things, it says them fairly loudly, but they’re rarely the things you want to know. We’re building infrastructure that will let the various bits of Thunderbird be much more helpful in describing what’s going on (through a log of notable events), what went wrong (non-intrusive but notable alerts), and how it’s progressing at long-running tasks (with more context than just a single progress bar). Teaching software that wasn’t designed with a notification mechanism or philosophy in mind how to be polite and informative is a slow and arduous task, but we’re making good progress. In Thunderbird 3b2, there’s an Activity Manager window, which for now will just report on message moves, copies and deletes, and IMAP auto-syncing. Now that the framework is in place, we should be able to have a lot more informative messages when you need them, and reduce the number of dialog boxes (especially the ones you can’t do anything about!).

One of the fascinating aspects of the activity manager is that it’s giving even those of us who know how the software works on a detailed level a better handle on important global aspects. For example, the activity manager showed me that the autosync function can and should be much more aggressive, so that more of your email is already downloaded before you need it.

Other features you may notice:

  • Much more useful Growl notifications on OS X
  • Keyboard shortcuts for quick tab navigation
  • Better looking forwarded mail
  • Fewer dialog boxes

What’s next?

The next beta release is our last scheduled beta. As such, we’re thinking of it as the last milestone to introduce Big New Features. Furthermore, we’re hoping to be even better behaved this cycle and land features as early in the process as possible. Upcoming features which we hope will be available in a nightly build soon include:

  • the new global search function, leveraging tabs
  • cleaning up the message header area further
  • “pop tarts” to complement the activity manager
  • the beginning of some theming work (prettier icons, etc.)

And then, of course, there will be unplanned bright ideas which show up out of nowhere. Life wouldn’t be fun without those.

Try out the beta, file bugs, send feedback!

PS: the illustration at the top is from a brand spankin’ new website for Mozilla Messaging. We’ve changed the site to make it the primary destination for Thunderbird users, riffing on the look of other Mozilla websites, and yet quite distinct. I find the illustrations in particular a lot of fun, and I’m very proud of the team that built it. Rafael Ebron ran the project with the SpreadThunderbird team, with designs from The Royal Order, and implementation from silver orange. A very nice job, thanks to all who contributed!  The new site also allows us to build localized sites, which will be amazing.

What’s Mozilla’s scope? What should it be?

Standard

A couple of canadians (!) have recently put up interesting posts about the Mozilla Foundation: David Eaves, with whom I had a great breakfast a few weeks ago, and Marc Surman, with whom I had a great long-distance phone chat. Both posts are worth reading, and digesting.

For what it’s worth, I agree with both.

I agree with David that the people involved in the open web (and that includes all wikipedia authors, youtube uploaders, and consumers of the same) are part of a social movement, whether they self-identify or not. I’m really interested to learn from him and people like him what the history of social movements can tell us about how to take what has traditionally been a very geeky concept (open standards, open source, etc.), and make it politically and socially not just relevant but critical and much more powerful than it is today. The “opposition” is much more astute at manipulating both courts and markets to their advantage, but that will shift if we’re ambitious enough.

I also agree w/ Marc that the Mozilla Foundation can do a lot more than what it does today, in shaping, energizing, and facilitating that movement. Especially when I’m outside of North America, it’s the Foundation that has credibility, and that credibility is currently languishing, unleveraged. We could and should do more.

It’s nice to see that the Mozilla galaxy is growing up enough that there can be simultaneous energy towards one thing, and very different but also important energy towards this complementary set of thought processes.

Oh, for the record: when I say open web these days, I mean something much broader and richer than just “the WWW using open standards”, although that’s the definition that I first used. Thunderbird’s goals, for example, are in scope, even if it doesn’t have much to do with traditional web protocols yet. Things like data portability, identity 2.0, net neutrality, data privacy, etc., are all in scope. Trying to pin down exactly what I mean with that word is something I’m trying to figure out — as David mentions, we need to do a better job of defining what we’re agreeing on.

I look forward to the conversations.

What's Mozilla's scope? What should it be?

Standard

A couple of canadians (!) have recently put up interesting posts about the Mozilla Foundation: David Eaves, with whom I had a great breakfast a few weeks ago, and Marc Surman, with whom I had a great long-distance phone chat. Both posts are worth reading, and digesting.

For what it’s worth, I agree with both.

I agree with David that the people involved in the open web (and that includes all wikipedia authors, youtube uploaders, and consumers of the same) are part of a social movement, whether they self-identify or not. I’m really interested to learn from him and people like him what the history of social movements can tell us about how to take what has traditionally been a very geeky concept (open standards, open source, etc.), and make it politically and socially not just relevant but critical and much more powerful than it is today. The “opposition” is much more astute at manipulating both courts and markets to their advantage, but that will shift if we’re ambitious enough.

I also agree w/ Marc that the Mozilla Foundation can do a lot more than what it does today, in shaping, energizing, and facilitating that movement. Especially when I’m outside of North America, it’s the Foundation that has credibility, and that credibility is currently languishing, unleveraged. We could and should do more.

It’s nice to see that the Mozilla galaxy is growing up enough that there can be simultaneous energy towards one thing, and very different but also important energy towards this complementary set of thought processes.

Oh, for the record: when I say open web these days, I mean something much broader and richer than just “the WWW using open standards”, although that’s the definition that I first used. Thunderbird’s goals, for example, are in scope, even if it doesn’t have much to do with traditional web protocols yet. Things like data portability, identity 2.0, net neutrality, data privacy, etc., are all in scope. Trying to pin down exactly what I mean with that word is something I’m trying to figure out — as David mentions, we need to do a better job of defining what we’re agreeing on.

I look forward to the conversations.