Revised “centerpiece” goal for 2010

December 14th, 2008

One of the proposed 2010 goals is “Deepen Mozilla’s role as a centerpiece of the Internet.” I received feedback that this goal feels wrong: it seems to be about promoting Mozilla rather than a healthy Internet. Once this was pointed out, it’s obvious. I’ve edited the proposed goal to reflect this and capture ideas raised during the various discussions.

Goal: Make openness, participation and distributed decision-making more real in Internet life.

  1. More and stronger communities practicing these values
  2. Scope expands to include things such as the open web, hybrid social enterprises, organizational sustainability, shared decision-making, individual control, and portability in Internet life
  3. Innovations emerge from varied sources
  4. Projects and products based on these values become increasingly vibrant
  5. Leadership through excellence, technological and otherwise
  6. Creation of open content becomes easier

7 comments for “Revised “centerpiece” goal for 2010”

  1. 1

    Jeff De Cagna said on December 14th, 2008 at 12:35 pm:


    Hello! I am a devoted Firefox user and evangelist. I follow your blog and how Firefox engages its community. At the moment, I am writing a book for leaders in voluntary organizations, and it would be very helpful to this work if I could interview you. How can I go about doing this? Thanks for your help!

  2. 2

    Zak Greant said on December 14th, 2008 at 12:38 pm:

    This is much clearer! 🙂 David Ascher noted (via Twitter) that ‘… “more real” feels off somehow.’ How about more “… a more common part of …” or “… an intrinsic part of …”

  3. 3

    Majken “Lucy” Connor said on December 14th, 2008 at 12:44 pm:

    Replying to davida’s twitter feedback that “more real” doesn’t work:

    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.

  4. 4

    Majken “Lucy” Connor said on December 14th, 2008 at 12:47 pm:

    hmm could also substitute real with normal/usual/everyday/commonplace etc

  5. 5

    Axel Hecht said on December 14th, 2008 at 2:22 pm:

    I personally have “Mozilla as a centerpiece of the internet” on the agenda.

    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.

  6. 6

    mitchell said on December 14th, 2008 at 2:39 pm:


    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.

  7. 7

    Majken “Lucy” Connor said on December 14th, 2008 at 3:43 pm:

    I think the difference is in the language. “Important” or “Invaluable” combined with “tool” has lots of positive connotations. I think the sticking point is the “center” part of “centerpiece.” People have lots of associations like “revolves around” or “controlling” when referring to the center of something. I think even “influence” with its connotations towards “manipulation” is a more positive image than “center.”

    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.

Skip past the sidebar