Archive for the “Mozilla” Category

November was MozCamp month for Mozilla. We held MozCamp Europe, including the Mid-East and Africa, and MozCamp Asia. For each MozCamp I gave an opening talk that touches on:

• what mozilla is, our key goals
• a bit of history about what we’ve done so far to meet our goals
• what we’re working on today
• what we should be doing in the future to meet our goals.

I’ve embedded the opening talk from MozCamp below. It’s a video, but the audio is the important part. It’s about 40 minutes long, so it’s not a set of sound-bites and it may seem slow-paced.   It is however, a pretty good summary of my view of the world and Mozilla’s place in it.

I also have a set of slides that reflect this talk. I’ll get them posted shortly as well.

Here’s the MozCamp Asia opening talk:

Over the summer and fall I wrote a set of posts about how Mozilla’s mission is leading us to develop new offerings and new ways of bring user sovereignty and freedom to online life.

My colleague David Ascher has written a piece which I find to be a nice summary of these goals. I’m planning to write a summary next year, after some discussion of user data, so I was very pleased to see that David has done so now. It’s a week or 10 days old, but if you haven’t seen it already it’s a nice, personal voice thinking about Mozilla in the new era.

We’re all creating large amounts of online data about ourselves. How should that data be treated? One key element is encryption, and the ability to store data in a format which is not easily read by people who aren’t authorized to do so. “Encryption” gets complicated pretty quickly, and the cryptography which underlie can also be complex. As a result, it’s easy to think of “encryption” as the answer, thinking that my data is safe if it’s encrypted.

My colleague Ben Adida has written a very helpful post about the value of encryption. He describes why is part of the solution for protecting data, but isn’t a complete solution. It’s a great post because it respects those of us who aren’t cryptographers and provides a thoughtful, understandable outline of the problem space.

Figuring out better ways to handle user data will be on our minds a great deal in the future. I was happy to see this post because it helps me think about the issues in a smarter way.

We build Firefox to build freedom and excellence into the web.  We build Firefox to make sure that each person can be sovereign over the technology he or she uses to interact with the web.   We build Firefox to combine user sovereignty and freedom with a great product experience that enriches web life.

We launched Firefox 7 years ago to make these goals real.  We started with the browser because it was the single greatest point of leverage.  At that time the existing browser provided neither user sovereignty nor high quality product.  We do both.  Mozilla is astonishingly successful at the browser layer.  We proved that the conventional wisdom of the time was wrong.  Browsers do matter.  People will notice.  The dominant commercial player need not be in control forever.  Something better is possible.

Firefox remains different from other browsers.  Everything about Firefox is designed to make sure that Firefox never has more control over your life than you do.  We design Firefox to provide a great experience, and many of the features look similar to that of other browsers.  Look deep into the product though, and you’ll find the utter commitment to the individual being more important than us, more important than our control or our convenience.   You’ll find an utter commitment to the good of the web as a whole.  We’re organized as a non-profit precisely to  allow us to focus on these commitments.

There is more to do.   There are new Internet experiences such as mobile, identity, sharing and data control.  Each of these areas needs a product that combines user sovereignty and a great product experience.  Each needs a product build to ensure that the product never has more control over your life than you do.

This is a big challenge.  It’s our future.  It’s as important as ever.

Last week I spent a few days at the World Economic Forum’s annual brain-storming event, the gathering of its “Global Agenda Councils.” One of my fellow-council members (Julia Hobsbawm — an extremely focused and efficient communicator) has already published her description of this year’s event. Rather than duplicate her work, I’ll simply thank her and add a bit about my experience.

The WEF asked me to facilitate a discussion during one of the break-out sessions. The overall session was Digital Governance, and probably 100 or 125 of the attendees choose this topic. Within this session there were 5 discussion groups, each with a particular question for discussion, and people  chose which questions they wanted to address.

The discussion I was asked to facilitate was “The Rights of the One vs the Needs of the Many — How does the digital world affect the way we think about this question?” I wasn’t sure how the discussion would go, but it was great. We covered very practical aspects such as “What is ‘the many,’ in a world where groups from across boundaries and may shift freely?” “What about jurisdictional issues?”

We also delved into some very theoretical topics such as the nature of pluralism, and does one need a “center that holds” to turn a bunch of groups into a pluralistic society? One upon a time I was well versed in political theory and facile with its use as an analytic tool, but it has been a while. I had to listen carefully and think hard to engage with the theoretical thinkers in the group. It was exhilarating.

The people who are invited to the Global Agenda Councils have already become known through their work. As a result, the group tends to be older, more “successful,” more male, more Western than general demographics. I found this version of the event to make some progress in these issues. Maybe it’s because my Council had good geographic distribution, as Julia chronicles. The Councils still don’t reflect the giant part of the world’s population that is under 25, and sometimes I feel this acutely. On the other hand, I don’t think I had the experience of being the only woman in any of the groups I came across, which happens to me regularly in Silicon Valley.

The work product of the few days together is a bit abstract, since the task was to figure out new models for approaching the world’s big problems. I agree with Julia that there’s a great deal of benefit in “mash-ups” of people with different areas of expertise. I always think carefully about attending, because it takes close to a week and there are some drawbacks. But I’m always drawn by the amazing assortment of people, and leave feeling the event is unique and worthwhile.