I don’t think you’re trying to say that Mozilla should be the thing that everything revolves around, I think that you’re trying to say that Mozilla should be a leader that is respected and uses its influence for good. Mozilla should be “at the center” of activity in the sense that it should be getting involved in important issues.

Yes, this is a very complex question about the degree to which we focus on our organization and goodwill as a tool. How much is “Mozilla” important? I wondered about this.

This version goes to the general. If Mozilla is effective at causing these things to happen then I think we will be a centerpiece. And in an ideal world there will be multiple other equally effective organizations as well.

I agree there’s not a clear answer here. Interested in what others think.

To me the difference between the two is the brand “Mozilla”.

I’m enjoying visiting an award show here in Berlin every now and then, the “Digitial Lifestyle Awards”. Firefox 2 won in the software category two years back, and Firefox 3 came in third for “Innovation” this year. This award has one category, “Best Brand”, and I see us competing there.

To me, establishing a strong brand “Mozilla” as an authority gives us a better leverage when talking about actual items impacting peoples lifes on the internet. “Make us strong” might sound selfish, and thus wrong.

Though, perhaps, it doesn’t really matter if the brand is a tool on the way to the goal or a goal in itself. But I do think we should keep in mind that the leverage it can bring shouldn’t be underestimated.

I dunno, to me it does. To me the point you’re trying to convey is that these are already concepts that people have bought into, but they’re still too much concepts rather than the reality of every day internet life.

Maybe “Make openness, participation and distributed decision-making real aspects of Internet life.” I don’t know if that satisfies david’s points though.