Mitchell’s Blog

One of the results of my trip to FISL (9th Annual International Free Software Forum) in Brazil last week was a version of the Mozilla Manifesto in Portuguese. The Mozilla Manifesto sets out basic values and goals of the Mozilla project; it describes the driving force behind products like Firefox and Thunderbird and our other activities.

I’ve had a draft version of the Manifesto in Portuguese for some time now (many thanks, Carolina). As part of this trip a couple of law professors reviewed and made some changes (thanks Ronoldo, thanks Bruno). I’m excited because I’d like to see discussions of the Mozilla Manifesto in a few different languages before we move from the “0.9″ to a “1.0″ version. Each language has its own subtleties and its own ways of conveying distinctions and focus. I suspect that questions and critiques of the Manifesto that arise from the variations between languages could be very helpful in creating a stronger document.

The Portuguese version is below. (And here is the English version.) If there are Portuguese speakers who have questions or thoughts that come out of such a review please let me know, either by comment here or feedback in the mozilla.governance newsgroup.

Mitchell

O Manifesto Mozilla, v0.9

Introdução

A internet está se tornando uma parte cada vez mais importante de nossas vidas.

O projeto Mozilla traduz-se numa comunidade global de pessoas que acreditam que a abertura da rede, inovação e oportunidade são elementos chave para a continuidade de uma Internet saudável. Nós temos trabalhado conjuntamente desde 1998 para assegurar que a Internet seja desenvolvida de forma a beneficiar a todos. Somos melhor conhecidos por ter criado o navegador Mozilla Firefox.

O projeto Mozilla baseia-se numa perspectiva que tem na comunidade a fonte de criação de software de código aberto e de desenvolvimento de novas formas de atividades colaborativas. Criamos comunidades de pessoas envolvidas em fazer a experiência de uso da Internet melhor para todos nós.

Como resultado destes esforços, destilamos uma série de princípios que acreditamos sejam críticos para que a Internet continue beneficiando tanto o bem público e comum, como os aspectos comerciais da vida. Estes princípios estão listados abaixo.

Os objetivos do Manifesto são:

1. Articular uma visão sobre a Internet que reflita o que os participantes da Mozilla desejam que a Fundação Mozilla siga;
2. Falar com as pessoas independentemente da profundidade de seu conhecimento técnico;
3. Fazer com que os colaboradores do Mozilla sintam-se orgulhosos do que estamos fazendo e nos motivem a continuar;
   e
4. Fornecer um arcabouço para que outras pessoas propaguem esta visão sobre a Internet.

Estes princípios não se tornarão realidade por si próprios. Pessoas são necessárias para fazer com que a Internet mantenha-se aberta e participativa – pessoas atuando como indivíduos, trabalhando em grupos e liderando outras pessoas. A Fundação Mozilla tem um compromisso com o avanço dos princípios estabelecidos neste Manifesto Mozilla. Convidamos a todos para nos acompanhar na tarefa de tornar a Internet um lugar cada vez melhor para todo mundo.

Princípios

1. A Internet é parte integral da vida moderna – sendo um componente chave para a educação, comunicação, colaboração, negócios, entretenimento e para a sociedade como um todo;
2. A Internet é um recurso publico global que deve permanecer aberto e acessível;
3. A Internet deve enriquecer a vida dos seres humanos como indivíduos;
4. A segurança dos indivíduos na Internet é fundamental e não pode ser tratada como opcional;
5. Os indivíduos devem ter a habilidade de moldar suas próprias experiências na Internet.
6. A efetividade da Internet como um recurso público depende de interoperabilidade (protocolos, formato de dados e conteúdo), inovação e participação descentralizada mundialmente.
7. Software livre e aberto promovem o desenvolvimento da Internet como um bem público.
8. Processos transparentes e baseados em comunidades promovem participação, responsabilidade e confiança.
9. Envolvimento comercial com o desenvolvimento da Internet traz vários benefícios; um equilíbrio entre os objetivos comerciais e os benefícios ao público é essencial.
10. Ampliar o benefício público promovido pela Internet é um importante objetivo ao qual vale dedicar tempo, atenção e compromisso.

Implementando o Manifesto Mozilla

Existem diversas formas de implementar os princípios do Manifesto Mozilla. Consideramos bem-vinda uma ampla gama de atividades e prevemos o mesmo tipo de criatividade que os participantes do Mozilla apresentaram em outras áreas do projeto. Para indivíduos não profundamente envolvidos com o projeto Mozilla, uma forma básica e muito efetiva de apoiar o Manifesto é usar o Mozilla Firefox e outros produtos que incorporam os princípios do Manifesto.

Compromisso da Fundação Mozilla

A Fundação Mozilla compromete-se a manter e empregar o Manifesto Mozilla em suas atividades. Especificamente, comprometemo-nos a:

• construir e permitir o desenvolvimento de tecnologias abertas e comunidades que apóiam os princípios do Manifesto;
• construir e distribuir aos consumidores bons produtos que apóiem os princípios do Manifesto;
• utilizar os bens gerados pelo Mozilla (propriedade intelectual como por exemplo direitos autorais e marcas; infra-estrutura, recursos financeiros e reputação) para manter a Internet como uma plataforma livre;
• promover modelos que criem valor econômico para o benefício público, e
• promover os princípios do Manifesto Mozilla em nosso discurso público e com a indústria da Internet.

Algumas atividades da Fundação – atualmente vinculadas à criação, distribuição e promoção de produtos ao consumidor – são conduzidas, primordialmente, por meio da Corporação Mozilla, subsidiária controlada pela Fundação Mozilla.

Convite

A Fundação Mozilla convida a todos que concordam e suportam os princípios do Manifesto Mozilla a juntarem-se a nós e encontrar novas formas para tornar esta visão sobre a Internet uma realidade.

This document discusses the application of web analytics tools to Mozilla websites.

We live in a world of data; we should be thinking carefully about that data and its impact. Many people don’t realize how much information about them is collected by websites and used as a business asset. Some of those who do understand don’t care, or figure there’s no sense talking about it. But a core of the Mozilla community is intensely focused on privacy and the individual person’s ability to understand and control personal information. This has always been the case, and it is part of our strength. These aspects should continue to inform the development of both our software and our websites. With this in mind, I’ve put together a discussion of a particular data-gathering proposal, together with the safeguards that make me comfortable with it.

We would like to understand how people interact with Mozilla’s websites, in particular the consumer-facing websites such as www.mozilla.com, mozilla-europe.org and mozilla-japan.org. To do this we want to implement tools that measure what people do when they visit these sites. These tools are generally known as “web analytics” tools. In particular, we want to implement a product called SiteCatelyst from a company called Omniture for a range of Mozilla websites. The specific sites, the phased rollout plan and the evaluation details are below. Using this services means that data about Mozilla visitors will be processed by Omniture, and will be stored on servers that are not under the direct, physical control of Mozilla. This is new to us and requires consideration of appropriate safeguards. Some wonder if it should even be done. I believe the proposal below is worth trying, and that our arrangement with Omniture includes appropriate safeguards.

Commitments

Mozilla will use the web analytics data only to determine aggregate usage patterns for our website. We will not seek to determine personal information from this data. Omniture will use the data from Mozilla websites only to provide and maintain the service for Mozilla; it will not share the information with others or use the information for other purposes. Omniture will not “correlate and report on any Customer Data with any other data collected through other products, services or web properties.” The domain names in Mozilla cookies will clearly identify their affiliation with Mozilla and the Omniture service. We will have public discussions of the results. Before the end of 2008 we will have a public discussion about the benefits (or lack thereof) of using this system. There will be a clear public statement about which web analytic services, if any, are in use with our websites. There will be a public notice and discussion period before including other types of websites, such as developer.mozilla.org and spreadfirefox.com.

Description

One aspect of the Mozilla project that is bigger than many people realize is our website presence. There are actually a number of Mozilla sites. (Or, in industry terms, “website properties.”) There are the development and community-focused sites like developer.mozilla.org, and spreadfirefox.com. And then there are the websites that consumers visit — in particular the download, support and services mozilla.com, mozilla-europe.org, and related sites. The latter are significant web presences, causing Mozilla to periodically appear in the list of top 50 most visited websites published by comScore (an Internet measurement firm analogous to Nielson in the TV space).

1. Our websites act as integral components of our users’ experience. They are also a primary way of communicating with most of our users who aren’t likely to read Planet Mozilla, the newsgroups or other community tools. Today we know very little about how people interact with our websites, in particular the consumer-facing websites. To improve the experience we first need to know some basic data about how users interact with our website properties. We’d like to understand things such as:

• Is something we think should be easy — like getting from a top-level page to useful add-ons — simple enough for people who aren’t familiar with Mozilla?
• If we add a landing page with explanations, do people get lost at those pages? Or do these pages help people as we had hoped?
• How many users successfully find, download, install and become long-term Firefox users?
• What paths do people take through the website?
• Is something new (like the dropdown content on the “whatsnew” page) useful to people? How many people see that page and actually click on the links?
• Do people find the language version of Firefox that fits their location?

2. Each of these websites is large and complex, and each gets an enormous number of visits from general consumers — that is, from people who are not familiar with Mozilla, may not be power users, and whom we can’t claim to understand from our own experiences. Those of us who work on the Mozilla project have — by definition — some familiarity with Mozilla. That is not the case for most of our current 150 or so million users. What feels “easy to use” or comfortable to us could be completely wrong for many people who visit these websites. Furthermore, what might make sense in one language or locale might not be helpful in other languages or cultural contexts.

3. How do we develop a better understanding of how people interact with a website? The basic answer is to gather aggregate data about how people use the website. The term generally used to describe this is “web analytics.” Aggregate data will help us answer the types of questions listed above.

4. What techniques are used to instrument a website so that it aggregates data about usage patterns? Two elements are used together to gather data– “cookies” and “web beacons.” A cookie is a string of information that a Web site stores on a visitor’s computer, and that the visitor’s browser provides to the Web site each time the visitor returns. Because the browser provides this cookie information to the website at each visit, cookies serve as a sort of label that allows a website to “recognize” a browser when it returns to the site. A “web beacon” is a marker placed in a webpage that makes it easier to follow and record the activities of a recognized browser, such as the path of pages visited at a website.

5. Are there negative things that could happen with this data? As with many kinds of data, yes. It is possible to correlate web analytics data with other data and potentially figure out persona information. Mozilla does not do this and Omniture is not allowed to correlate Mozilla data with any other data to derive personal information.

6. What precisely is Mozilla proposing to do? Use a web analytics product from Omniture called SiteCatalyst to measure interaction with a number of our other consumer-facing websites. The proposed rollout of the web analytics is in phases:

• Phase 1: www.mozilla.com, firefox.com, getfirefox.com, *.mozilla.com. Rollout is pending discussion and feedback on this document. I believe the concerns raised in the newsgroup discussion are addressed, so there may very little discussion to be had. In that case, the implementation will occur shortly. We would also amend our Privacy Policy as appropriate to describe the storage and processing of this data by a third party.
• Phase 2: www.mozilla-europe.org, possibly mozilla-japan.org, pending discussion and feedback on this document.
• Phase 3: Discussion and review period of usefulness of data at the end of 2008.
• Phase 4: (Pending outcome of Phase 3): add other Mozilla websites such as: addons.mozilla.org, developer.mozilla.org, www.mozilla.org, spreadfirefox.com, planet.mozilla.org; or consider use of a different or additional web analytics program.

7. Isn’t there an open-source or free software version that will do the job? Not that we know of.

8. Why don’t be build our own? This is a significant project in which we have no expertise. We need a solution that works at scale, in a complex, distributed setting, and is available now. That’s a serious project to take on, and one that would certainly take a lot of time and focus. We’d need to build a new community of people that embodies Mozilla DNA and values AND build a world-class piece of software. We’re not experts in analytics or in defining requirements, so we would have to wait until a fair amount of development was done before we could even begin to evaluate how helpful the project was. For those people who were around Mozilla since the early days, you will undoubtedly remember the enormous pain of trying to build the application (in those days the Mozilla Application Suite) before we had a solid infrastructure (the Gecko implementation.) The idea of building an analytics package while trying to use it at the same time on websites as complex as the those in question is a recipe for disaster.

9. Why Omniture? Omniture has many positive points. The use of the data is limited to providing the web analytics service to Mozilla. The product SiteCatelyst is widely used solution for large websites; it’s known to scale, be stable, and provide reliable, trustworthy results. Access to the data is highly secured and Omniture provides support resources. In addition, there is a user interface for allowing individuals to opt out of the web analytics processing. There are some drawbacks of course, there usually are. Omniture is not open source code, which we always prefer. Our arrangement with them is contractual. That’s helpful in that it allows us to include the privacy safeguards in the contract. But as is almost always the case the complete contract is confidential. Omniture has been criticized for its business practice of using cookies that don’t clearly say they are from Omniture. It turns out Omniture allows its customers to specify whether they want a cookie with the Omniture name in it. Mozilla cookies will do so. And finally, Omnniture is not free. Use of Omniture requires payment, unlike other options and the cost generally rises with the usage of the sites. So it could get expensive and we’ll have to monitor this.

10. How will we evaluate if the data is worth the effort to get it? We’ll look at the results. We have a set of people who are adapt at looking at data — Ken, Polvi and Daniel, who just joined us. Ken and Polvi have been publishing what we’ve learned from the data we do have, and we’ll see what can be learned from the additional data. We’ve already moved the data (known as “metrics”) discussions into the public via the Metrics Blog We will continue to do this.

11. Will Omniture be used with all Mozilla websites? We don’t know yet. As noted above, we’ll do a review of the consumer-facing sites and see how valuable the data is and how we feel about gathering it. We may also look at alternative providers as part of this discussion. Then we can decide about other sites as well such as our developer and community facing websites.

12. Privacy Policy. Our current privacy policy says that Mozilla data won’t go to an outside third party. So it will need amendment to allow for this case. Details on the proposed changes will follow, but for now I’d like to talk through the goals and proposed techniques.

13. Sensitivity to data, privacy and user control. Most websites (and the organizations running them) are unabashed about collecting data, and using that data to improve their business. The use of web analytics is a standard practice, taken for granted by many website operators. This proposal is an extremely mild version. Some people have suggested to me that this discussion is “much ado about nothing” and reflects an extreme focus on privacy of a portion of the Mozilla community. I agree that this is a mild proposal, collecting the most basic of data. But I don’t believe this discussion, or the basic concern is irrelevant or extreme. As noted above, we live in a world of data; we should be thinking carefully about that data and its impact.

***

Comments welcome here. If you’re interested in the full discussion, head over to the mozilla.org Governance newsgroup. You can also read a set of past comments and participate through the mozilla.governance Google Group.

Today is a special day.

March 31, 1998 is the date that Mozilla was officially launched. It’s the date the first Mozilla code became publicly available under the terms of an official open source license and a governing body for the project — the Mozilla Organization — began its public work. It’s always been known in Mozilla parlance as “3/31.” We’ll be celebrating Mozilla’s 10 year anniversary throughout 2008. Today I want to look at our first ten years, and a bit at the next ten years.

Ten years ago a radical idea took shape. The idea was that an open source community could create choice and innovation in key Internet technologies where large, commercial vendors could not. This idea took shape as the Mozilla project.

Mozilla was not the first group to pursue this idea. GNU/Linux and the BSD operating systems were already providing a very effective alternative at the server-side operating system level; the Apache web server was already proving that an open source solution could be effective even in areas where the commercial players were actively competing. Each of these gave strength to the idea that this new effort could be successful.

At its inception, Mozilla was:

• An open source codebase for the software we call the browser
• A group of people to build and lead an open source development effort — the Mozilla Organization (also known as “mozilla.org”)
• A larger group of people committed to the idea — and the enormous work involved — in building a browser we all needed
• An open source license granting everyone expansive rights to use the code for their own goals — the Mozilla Public License (which is now at version 1.1)
• A website
• A mascot (the orange T-rex, alternatively referred to as a lizard)

During the years since 3/31 we have taken that radical idea and proved its power. We have broadened the idea beyond anything imagined at our founding. And in the next ten years we’ll continue to be radical about building fundamental qualities such as openness, participation, opportunity, choice and innovation into the basic infrastructure of the Internet itself.

What have we accomplished?

• Converted a closed, proprietary development process into a vibrant, transparent, open source project.
• Grown into a massive global community, quite possibly the largest open source project in the world
• Developed exceptional technology
• Developed a set of long-term, vibrant projects — Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, Camino, Bugzilla, Calendar –most, and possibly all of which have millions of users
• Become the software provider of choice for over 170 million people
• Proved that open source development can product great end user products
• Brought the Internet to millions of people in their language
• Moved the overall state of browser software forward dramatically
• Become a technology platform others use to create products built on Mozilla technologies, and in some cases competitive with Mozilla products
• Developed and implemented systems and community norms for a massive distribution of authority
• Conducted all sorts of new activities in a transparent and participatory way, including product planning, marketing, public speaking, UI and organizational decisions
• Developed a reputation that people trust and feel they have helped create
• Developed a sustainability model using market mechanisms to support a public benefit mission
• Become a significant force in the development of Internet technology industry-wide
• Developed a sophisticated organization that can — for example — service, update and respond to 170 million users
• Built and operated giant open-source web applications — where the source code that runs the application IS open source and available to others;
• Articulated our mission in broad, non-technical term
• Encouraged others to try open, transparent and collaborative techniques in a broad range of activities
• Created public assets of enormous value

That’s a lot. And we’re not done yet. The next ten years have challenges and opportunities equal to those of our first decade. The Internet is now interwoven into modern life, and it will certainly grow to be more powerful. There’s no guarantee that it will remain open or enjoyable or safe. There’s no guarantee that individuals will be able to participate in creating or (for the general non-technical consumer) effectively managing their experience. There’s no guarantee that there is an effective voice for individuals benefiting from the increased power of the Internet.

Mozilla can and should fulfill this role. But not as a guarantor. Mozilla is an opportunity for people to make this vision happen. Mozilla is about opportunity and participation. Mozilla is people getting involved, “doing” things, creating the Internet experience we want to live with. We’re not alone in doing this. Other open source and free software projects play a strong role, as do other organizations focused on participation, collaboration, and openness.

We want the Internet to be an open environment, where it’s easy to innovate, and where individuals, small groups and newcomers all have rich opportunities to create and lead. So, we’ll build technologies and products that make this happen. Mozilla offers each person who wants to see this happen an opportunity to do something. Using Mozilla products is an important step in its own right — every person using Mozilla products makes our voice stronger. And there is much, much more that any one of us can do.

What do we know is ahead of us?

• Hundreds of millions of people relying on us for the quality of their Internet experience
• Ensuring that the Open Web itself remains the developer platform of choice for new web applications; providing a compelling alternative to closed, proprietary development environments
• Bringing openness and consumer choice to the mobile environment as we have to the desktop world
• Handling data in a more transparent, participatory way for general consumers
• Bringing openness, paticipation and opportunity to more — and as yet mostly undetermined — aspects of Internet life
• Evolving the “browser” to support the new things we’re doing on the Internet
• Creating a new style of global organization: one where local involvement around the globe has increasing project-wide influence
• Broadening the sustainability options for “hybrid” organizations — that is, organizations that support public benefit activities through market funding mechanisms as well as traditional fundraising

And these are just the things we can see today. Many of the best, most exciting activities of the next ten years will seem to come from nowhere. In reality they will come from people combining their own ingenuity with Mozilla tools, techniques, technologies to build new, wildly innovative aspects to life that none of us can imagine today. And because the Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit organization we are focused on creating the maximum possible public benefit rather than revenue. We don’t limit how people can use our technology to maximize revenue; we encourage people to challenge us to be better.

Opportunity, Challenge, Excitement, Fun

During much of our first ten years people “knew” that our goal of creating choice and innovation in the browser space was impossible. From that perspective we have achieved the impossible. It certainly wasn’t easy, but here we are today in a radically different setting.

The challenges before us are great. But the opportunity is many times larger. We have the ability to affect aspects of Internet architecture and user experience. We have the organization, we have the frameworks we need to work in, we have the voice. And most important of all, we have the Mozilla community. The many thousands of people actively engaged, and the multiples of that who support Mozilla goals and offerings.

It’s our world. Let’s make it great.

Mozilla will be participating in the Fórum Internacional Software Livre (FISL) this April, which is exciting both for Mozilla and for me personally. FISL is a non-governmental organization that promotes the adoption, distribution and contribution of free software. This is the 9th year of the forum– hence FISL 9.0 as they put it on their site– and will be held in Porto Alegre. Over 5000 participants from a variety of backgrounds– end users, contributors, professionals, government officials, and corporate partners– will gather to meet and share ideas.

This will be my first trip to Brazil, but it is only one in a growing series of interactions between the Mozilla Foundation and free software / open source participants in Brazil. JT Batson and Asa each wrote about their trip last year, which made it very clear to us that Brazil has very high enthusiasm for free and open source software. There are also some fascinating experiments going on in Brazil today, such as energy self-sufficiency. It’s clear that greater interaction between Brazilian participants and Mozilla could have some very interesting results.

FISL will be a great chance for my Mozilla colleagues and I to learn much more about what’s happening in Brazil and how we might work more closely together. And hopefully, to meet some of the people we’ve heard so much about!

At the same time we’ll be hosting a set of activities. You can find information about Mozilla-specific events on the Mozilla wiki, and Chris Blizzard has posted an annotated schedule of events that is well worth looking at. Mozilla will be hosting a workshop on April 18, and my talk is currently scheduled for the 19th. This should be a very exciting chance to experience the free software and open source community in Brazil first-hand. Now, if only I could find a way to get my family there as well!

New Module Proposal

In a previous post I proposed that we create a group of people to be responsible for the overall health of Mozilla’s module ownership system. I also proposed that the group itself be a module within the module system. This way we can build on our shared understanding of how modules work.

More specifically, I propose we use the module and sub-module model currently used by the Firefox front end teams. This system adds another layer of delegation to deal effectively with the scope of activities, while ensuring there is an owner and peers responsible for the integrated whole that people experience as the front-end.

For those interested in more detail, there is an uber-module, known simply as the “toolkit” module. It has an owner and peers. This group has authority across the toolkit module. Within the toolkit module there are sub-modules. These are more specific aspects of the front-end. Each of these has sub-module owners and peers. The sub-module owners and peers have the standard degree of authority in their sub-modules, subject to the authority of the uber toolkit module owners and peers. In reality there’s a lot more consensus and back-and-forth than “subject to the authority of” might imply. But there is an identified escalation path and decision-maker when the need arises.

In this case I propose we create an uber-module called Governance, for which I will be the owner. (For those not familiar with Mozilla, this is not new. I’ve been the ultimate decision-maker for all non-technical decision at Mozilla, including policy and governance, since 1999.) We then create a sub-module called Module Ownership. In the future we’ll create other sub-modules. An example of one that comes to mind immediately is our policy for handling security bugs, for which Frank Hecker has always been the owner.

For the Module Ownership module we should have two owners: Brendan primarily for modules relating to technical matters, and me for modules relating to non-technical matters. We would have a set of peers. This would be a group of about seven to ten people with authority to address issues relating to modules and module ownership. They would act as peers generally do, giving us a set of experienced people, any one of whom could become qualified to become the sub-module owner. This will help us build a deepening set of people with the reputation and authority to lead.

I view my involvement here as part of my Chief Lizard Wrangler role, not related to my employment status. I will count it as a mark of success when it becomes clear that there are several people other than me doing the relevant work who could be a good sub-module owner. It’s a mark of success not because I’m not interested in this. It’s a mark of success because our organization is healthier when there are several people who are able to lead in important areas.

Designating Members

In this proposal, Brendan and I would behave as module and sub-module owners generally do, delegating authority to peers. I don’t have a complete list in mind now, and I don’t think Brendan does either at this point. Naturally, I hope to soon.

The Module Owner System

The module owner system is at the heart of how we manage ourselves. We’ve used this system for coding activities for many years, and I’ve got an open bug for extending this to cover non-coding activities as well. We have an identified set of modules, module owners and a policy document describing the responsibilities and authority of a module owner. (In brief, we divide our code into logical chunks called modules. A person with a good reputation for the area covered by a module is tapped to become the module owner, and he or she is responsible for that module.)

We also have a final decision-maker for conflicts among module owners or issues with a particular module owner; that decision maker is Brendan Eich. Brendan has been doing this since 1998. For those not familiar with Mozilla, our basic rule has been that Brendan is the ultimate decision-maker for technical matters within the Mozilla project, and I am the ultimate decision-maker for other issues. We each try to use that authority only when necessary– when the people involved in the daily activities get stuck, or there is disagreement or some other problem that requires a decision. This is not weakness. It stems from the realization that Mozilla succeeds because many people make decisions, find ways to solve problems, and provide leadership. It is more effective in the long run for us when a group of peers solves a problem together. Distributed authority is the norm. Overuse of a central, final decision-making power will not make Mozilla healthy.

So we have a system that works well for us on a daily basis and we have an ultimate decision-maker for settings where we need one. But what we don’t have today is a group of people with responsibility for the health of the module ownership system. These topics include:

• Filling vacant roles where appropriate;
• Ensuring module owners are fulfilling their responsibilities, and replacing those who are not;
• Creating and staffing new modules as new parts of the project evolve;
• Figuring out what to do if a module isn’t getting enough attention;
• Resolving conflicts among module owners.

I propose we create such a group. More precisely, I propose that we create this group as a module within the module owner system. I’ve put the details of how I think this module would be organized and operate in a subsequent post. First I want to address the functions of the group and why I believe it’s important. Then we can turn to whether the precise structure I’m proposing makes sense.

Responsibilities of the Proposed Group

There should not be a giant amount of work to do on a daily basis. Over the years David Baron and Brendan have periodically updated the list of module owners. Last year Stuart took on and completed a review and updating of our modules, which was overdue. These things should happen periodically. Occasionally there is a question of whether a particular module owner is still active enough to be a module owner, or we need to identify new module owners. Every so often there are questions about a module owner’s work. We should look at whether the policy document governing modules and module owners should be updated. We might want to think about better ways to handle modules that are under-owned, or where someone is module owner out of a sense of civic duty rather than an inherent interest in the module. One part of the role will probably be providing advice as we extend the module owners system to non-coding activities. So I don’t envision this group having a giant amount of work on a daily basis. There will be some periods of focused activity.

If there isn’t a huge amount of work, why do I think it is worth formalizing a group of people to do it? Several reasons.

• The work is really important. Module owners have a high degree of authority. This is part of ensuring our vitality as a project, and ensuring we have clear roles based on merit, reputation and general acclaim. We will be stronger when we have a group of people proactively thinking about the module system and working though some of the issues listed above.
• It’s important to build a group of people who are knowledgeable and experienced in governing important areas of our project such as the module ownership system. Even if Brendan and I were quick and perfect in all our decisions (which we most certainly are not) having only one or two people involved in making decisions is a weakness in our system. More people with experience is better.
• We’re bound to have some conflicts, that’s how life is. Having a group of people who have been working through issues in calm times is very helpful when something comes up and tensions rise.
• The clearer the system is the easier it will be to extend it to new, non-coding activities.

Criteria

Members of this group should be module owners (of either coding or non-coding activities). In addition they should have:

• Interest in how we govern ourselves. Ideally, a person has previously demonstrated this interest by some set of activities. Someone could be a great module owner but still poorly suited for this role;
• Appropriate understanding of Mozilla activities as a whole and the “pulse” of a good chunk of the project;
• A good feel for whether suggestions, comments, and complaints are broadly applicable or represent an unusual viewpoint;
• Interest and ability to help others accomplish things. This is probably more important than what one can accomplish oneself for this role;
• Ability to balance varying perspectives and needs;
• Internal understanding of the value of non-coding activities to the Mozilla project.

Structure of the Group

I propose we create this group as a module and use the module ownership system as the basic governance. That way we’ll have a module owner, peers and a way of interacting that we understand. I will put a more precise description of how I think this will work in the module owner system in a follow up post, mostly because I think it will be helpful to separate the mechanics of how this might work from the discussion of whether such a group is valuable in the first place.

Comments welcome here. If you’re interested in the full discussion, head over to the mozilla.org Governance newsgroup. You can also read a set of past comments and participate through the mozilla.governance Google Group.

John has a post today about how some people impute revenue motives to everything we do. In his case John made a statement about how one of Apple’s business practices is bad for the overall security and health of the Internet. (In this case the practice is to encourage consumers to download and install new software by identifying it as an “update” to software the person already has on his or her machine.)

Some of the reactions address the actual issue. But there’s also a set of responses along the lines of: ‘All Lilly really cares about is using Firefox to make money from Google, and all this talk of what’s good for the Internet is just a smokescreen for protecting the revenue stream from Google.’ (This is not an actual quote, it’s my description of a set of responses.) I’m coming to wonder if any statement or action we take that is controversial or based on mission with get this response. I’ve had this experience myself when discussing a number of topics.

Periodically I’ll be in a discussion about Mozilla’s plans for something and people respond by saying “Oh, that’s because Google cares about [fill in the blank] and your revenue comes from Google.” On several occasions I’ve been utterly dumb-founded and speechless because I have never even thought of Google in relation to the discussion. (I’d give some examples but I am concerned that we’ll end up rehashing old issues. )

But much of the world is driven by money and all sorts of people say they have different or additional motivations. So suspicion may be warranted. At Mozilla we can only do what John notes — keep pursuing the mission, keep demonstrating by our actions that our mission is the critical piece, and being authentic.

A separate problem is that a focus on money makes it easy to miss other, important topics. In this case the question is: what happens if consumers stop accepting security upgrades because they don’t trust the other software that comes along with it? That’s a disaster for all of us. That’s the question John is raising and it’s an important question to consider. Those commentators who dismiss this topic because Mozilla competes with commercial offerings and generates revenue miss this point. If the commentators you turn to dismiss everything for this reason, then I’ll hope you’ll add some additional commentators to your resource list.

The Mozilla Foundation is looking for an Executive Director. We’ve been doing this for a while now. We suspected that the number of people who can understand and lead something of Mozilla’s complexity and history would be small and hard to find, and we were right. Here’s where we are.

We’ve had three or four meetings of the search committee where we talked to a number of potential candidates. So far we haven’t found a candidate the search committee thinks is close enough to introduce to the broader Mozilla group. (And of course, this process is sensitive for the candidates, so we only want to introduce candidates who we think have a reasonable chance of making sense for Mozilla.)

One important thing we’ve learned so far: It’s hard to find someone who understands both open source software and the consumer space. This is an area where Mozilla is truly a pioneer and this has been clear in the search process. We’ve talked to a number of people who understand software and open source software in particular. We’ve found that many of these folks are almost exclusively focused on things like conferences for open source developers, understanding the various open source stacks and so on. Most of these folks have not spent time living in a consumer world, or building consumer software or trying to talk to consumers. I think our massive contact with consumers is one of the unusual — almost unique — characteristics that Mozilla brings to the effort to promote openness, interoperability and participation on the web.

Another set of people understand consumers well but don’t have much background in software or open source development. Some of these folks are very smart, understand the Mozilla mission and could do a lot to help us bring the Mozilla vision to a broader set of people. For these folks the issue is generally: do they understand — or can learn - enough about Mozilla and Internet technology to be effective? That includes both being accepted by our developer community as a viable leader and understanding enough about Internet technology to be creative in our world.

We’ve come across a couple of people who seem likely to bridge this gap, although there have been setbacks. One potential candidate had to withdraw due to family circumstances. But we haven’t given up by any means.

I’ll try to do updates more frequently, and/or encourage another member of the Search Committee to do so. When we have a candidate who looks promising there will certainly be public discussion.

That’s a photo of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Pioneer Award awarded to the Mozilla Foundation and Mitchell Baker.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a nonprofit organization that defends consumer and citizens’ rights in the digital world, primarily through the judicial system. Each year the EFF presents its Pioneer Awards, recognizing “individuals and organizations that have made significant and influential contributions to the development of computer-mediated communications and to the empowerment of individuals in using computers and the Internet.”

The award ceremony was last Tuesday at the O’Reilly ETech conference in San Diego, California. There was a brief introduction for each award winner. John Perry Barlow, one of the original co-founders of the EFF, introduced Mozilla. He spoke about the significance of the name — the Electronic Frontier. He said they choose this name believing that there will be a frontier in the digital world for a long time to come. He also said that the Pioneer Awards reflect the ongoing presence of a frontier and its pioneers. There are vast new territories before us — unknown, wildly exciting and yet potentially dangerous. The future of the electronic frontier is unclear, we are defining its character as we go along. And thus, the pioneers today are no less pioneers than those of 20 years ago.

This is of course great to hear. It’s personally satisfying, but it’s also a perfect lead-in to talk about Mozilla. Each recipient was asked to speak for about 5 minutes (or, more precisely, “more than one minute, less than 20 minutes, and somewhere between 3 and 7 minutes.”) John’s introduction let me jump right into what makes Mozilla work. Mostly I talked about how at Mozilla we know there are pioneers, because we see them every day. We have massive numbers of people working to build an Internet that has civic and social value — as well as personal economic gain — built into its fabric. I noted that we focus on interoperability, transparency, openness, participation as the social factors that build and define a great Internet experience as well as our products.

In was a very rewarding evening, and an honor to be recognized.

Here’s a brief report of my trip to Europe, which started on Saturday, February 9 and ended on Friday the 15th.

Leave Saturday evening. Lose most of a night’s sleep. Arrive in London Sunday afternoon. Do some work, walk around a bit try to work out the kinks from the plane trip. Get a decent night’s sleep.

Monday: Up at 6 to get some work done before meetings start at 8 a.m. Press meetings go until almost 7 p.m., with fortunately a break for lunch. We had four taped sessions, two video sessions and two sessions with photographers. One photographer literally took us walking around the streets and blocking sidewalks for photos. The questions ranged from introductory and general topics to a discussion of philosophical differences reflected in different open source and free software licenses. Jane Finette manages the logistics and keeps me where I’m supposed to be.

Tuesday: Up at 5:30 for a flight to Munich. On the way Jane and I learn that the local city airport has cancelled many, many flights- including ours- due to heavy fog. In the cab Jane manages to get a new flight for us from a different airport and we head in a different direction. I was pretty surprised- I can’t really imagine being in a cab and being able to change a canceled flight from San Francisco airport to a different flight from the San Jose airport, all with a single phone call to a number gleaned from the airline’s website, but Jane and Lufthansa managed it. By the time we get to the airport (Heathrow this time) the fog has moved around and our new flight is a couple of hours late leaving.

This would all be fine except that the journalists we’re meeting in Munich have flown in from other parts of Germany and have their own plane flights back. We arrive at the hotel in Munich to find one of the journalists on the hotel steps eager to get started so we have time to talk. I’m so tired I promptly spill a bunch of coffee all over the serving table. But I’m also clear that the hotel has seen this happen many times, so I blithely ignore the dismay of the organizer and plunge in. Mozilla’s market share in Germany is around 35% so this is not an introductory conversation. It’s pretty deep into the specifics of Mozilla and the kinds of questions that someone very familiar with Mozilla would ask. The most novel part of the discussion was a few questions on the interaction of Firefox 3’s offline capabilities with our Prism project. I love the chance to talk to journalists who have time to develop their own expertise and perspective- one never knows where the conversation will lead.

Tuesday’s press meetings went until 7 p.m. or so. Jane and I managed to get a nice meal (my first actual meal of the day) about 8:30 p.m. I spent the rest of the evening thinking about the talk I would give on Thursday morning at the Netxplorateur Forum. I spent a few hours during the middle of the night thinking about this as well, since I wasn’t satisfied with my progress. I seem to be unable to develop a talk or a slide show or a presentation and give it over and over. Or even to take the same presentation and tweak it. I am compelled to prepare a talk for the specific audience and event. This means I am rarely really prepared until I have a sense of the event and the people. In other words, I am almost never prepared when I get on the plane. It adds a lot of extra stress but I’ve been unable to change this pattern.

Wednesday I leave Munich and fly to Paris. Wednesday evening Tristan, Anne-Julie and I meet up for a bit. Then we enjoy a delightful dinner with a bunch of Mozilla contributors who have gathered in Paris. This is my first trip to Paris on behalf of Mozilla and thus my first time meeting a bunch of these folks. I know of them of course, and in many cases have long online working relationships but of course meeting people and seeing all these folks together is extraordinarily invigorating. I leave around 10 to get ready for the talk the next day.

Thursday- get up early to get to the Netxplorateur Forum before it starts. Again, I am compelled to attend the early parts of an event where I’m speaking. I like to hear the introductory remarks and absorb the tenor of the event so I can speak more clearly to the audience. In general I like to hear the keynotes for this purpose. But today I am the keynote, so I have to gather the sense of things from smaller clues.

The event was “designed to enable key political and business figures to grasp how Internet culture will transform the way our institutions and our companies are managed.” The audience was described to me as “400 French political, business and media decision-makers . . .” So the audience is clearly educated, in leadership positions but not necessarily particularly familiar with the ins and out of Internet technology. Firefox market share in France is around 25%, so I expected most of the audience to know of Firefox, but not necessarily to know much about the way it is created or how Mozilla is organized, or why so many participate. I was asked to speak for about 45 minutes and then to answer a few questions. The event was held at the French Senate. It was an odd setting because the buildings themselves are spectacular but they are not set up for an event like this. There was no place to get water for example, which is hard during a day of talking.

I spoke about what Mozilla is, how we work, our public benefit basis, why we believe building public, civic and social benefit into the Internet is both important and possible, and about the techniques we have found that promote participation and individual motivation. These are topics that people are very interested in. A number of people stopped me afterward to say how encouraging and hopeful they find Mozilla and our ways of working. Many of these people are not remotely technical and are unlikely to build software. But they certainly understand the importance of the Internet, the desire to be able to participate, and the joys of an organization where doing things well relates clearly to one’s influence and leadership.

Thursday afternoon was a series of meetings with French press. These conversations were detailed and deep, with journalists who know a great deal about Mozilla, Firefox and Thunderbird. We finished about 7 p.m. or so. Anne-Julie worked some miracles to get water, juice and even a good space where we didn’t have to keep changing rooms.

Thursday night I had dinner with Tristan and we talked about Mozilla Europe and Mozilla in Europe and Europe’s influence on the Mozilla project in general. It was a funny evening. We realized that afternoon that Thursday was Valentine’s Day, and thus a bad day to try to find dinner without a reservation in Paris. We managed it at one place, but then learned that the meal was a special 4 course Valentine’s Day dinner, complete with Valentine’s Day decorations and wine and rose petals and such. So we ended up in the bar of my hotel where they said they could make some sort of vegetable soup. I was a bit distressed- it was another day where by 8:30 p.m. I hadn’t actually had a meal yet, just a lot of coffee and a snack here or there. But I forgot, I was in Paris, and even the makeshift vegetable soup was lovely. It wasn’t actually much of a meal for the day, but it certainly was tasty. Tristan and I managed to cover a lot of ground talking about Mozilla and making it even stronger and more effective at bringing openness and transparency to the Internet.

Friday morning I got up and went to the airport. Actually, I got up early to go to the gym after so many hours sitting in uncomfortable settings. But the hotel had forgotten to mention their gym was under renovation and not available. So much for trying to stay healthy! I made it home Friday night on the edge of a flu, but managed to shake it off by doing nothing Saturday but sit around feeling exhausted.

I was on vacation the week after the Europe trip, so haven’t had a chance to see the results of the various interviews. I’m feeling a bit out of touch still but hoping to get back into the swing of things in the next day or two.