Summit2008/Notes/Identity Transcript: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Adding transcript from Mozilla Identity session) |
(format) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<pre> | <pre> | ||
--- Log opened Wed Jul 30 23:53:10 2008 | --- Log opened Wed Jul 30 23:53:10 2008 | ||
Mitchell: Plan to spend 10-15 min on question of Mozilla Identity | |||
Mitchell: Look at stuff on flip charts, get an idea of where they fit, | |||
how do they fit | |||
Mitchell: ... discuss proposed goals | |||
Mitchell: I went through this tree. Didn't get any horrendous feedback | |||
saying it's wrong | |||
Mitchell: Things coming up lately, couple things that need to be represented | |||
that aren't | |||
Mitchell: One, community | |||
Mitchell: It flows through everything we do. In one sense it's implicit | |||
in that, in one sense it's missing. | |||
Mitchell: So how do we represent the idea of community in that? | |||
Mitchell: Do we consider it integral in every cell that we don't need to | |||
call it out, or does it need to be called out | |||
Mitchell: Second thing is that the values from Manifesto aren't expressed | |||
in that diagram | |||
Mitchell: I'm not sure where they'd show up or how | |||
Mitchell: If they're roots, or if public benefit root picks them up | |||
Mitchell: But they are part of how we think about ourselves | |||
Mitchell: e.g. is privacy a root, since it's something we value | |||
David Ascher: One thing about community that's interesting is everybody | |||
uses the word to mean the different things | |||
David: I never use it in the singular | |||
David: People belong to Mozilla community, but also other communities. | |||
E.g. qa community, l10n community | |||
David: In these people know each other intimately | |||
David: Not like Mozilla community of 1/2 mill | |||
David: Community is interesting, but also a loaded term | |||
fantasai: maybe think of it as veins that run through the tree? | |||
Zak: .... | |||
Zak: When ppl talk about community, they're talking about peers | |||
Zak: people who are working on the same project, even remotely | |||
Zak: How many people think of users as part of community? | |||
some raised hands | |||
Mitchell: .. goals and improving interaction is connection between different | |||
parts of Mozilla | |||
Mitchell: support working w/qa | |||
e.g | |||
David: One that's challenging about scale of Mozilla at this point | |||
David: I don't think humans are evolved to work with this many people | |||
David: Hard to be in contact with thousands of people | |||
David: Our brains are not wired for that | |||
David: .. healthy relationships at scale | |||
David: So not everybody needs to know everybody else | |||
Atul: Question around who to trust around world of the Internet | |||
Atul: A lot of users coming to Internet know noting about it | |||
Atul: Interesting discussions about security. Users tend to assume that | |||
anywhere on the Internet is dangerous | |||
Atul: In reality, I only visit a subset of the Internet that I consider to be safe | |||
Atul: I will only choose to share my personal info with a small amount of that | |||
Atul: Goes into things like kind of software you download | |||
Atul: Firefox is a gateway to everything you put on your computer to some extent. | |||
Atul: How do you trust | |||
Atul: How do you know who/what to trust on the Internet. | |||
Atul: There's no real sense of identity built on the Internet. | |||
Atul: One thing I think about is doing something, something social. Social | |||
network so that my parents could say I trust my son, things that he | |||
does... | |||
Mitchell: You're talking about a more abstract concept of community | |||
Mitchell: A community of trust. A layer that is really different ... | |||
Mitchell: I can't figure out livechat | |||
(...?) | |||
Mitchell: Interesting set of identity, hard to represent as communities | |||
get more abstract | |||
Zak: If we had this biological model of what we are. | |||
Zak: Community is what we create, but also what we need. | |||
Zak: Same thing with values in manifest. | |||
Zak: Like we're trying to create the environment that we need | |||
Zak: create what's in the manifesto | |||
Zak: It's kinda like plants. They slowly changed the earth to be what they | |||
want it to be. | |||
Nicolas: It might be useful to separate community out into a noun and a verb | |||
Nicolas: The tree, you can almost put a title that says "The Mozilla Community" | |||
Nicolas: One of the roots of the community, one of the shared practices, | |||
is about a community approach. | |||
Nicolas: About less hierarchical, about creating communities | |||
Nicolas: Community is a practice that Mozilla encourages. | |||
Nicolas: I think the practice of doing community is something, and the | |||
end result is the Mozilla Community | |||
Gandalf: There's a term for that, a participatory approach. | |||
Gandalf: You can look at hierarchical org or participatory org | |||
Gandalf: We're definitely a participatory org. Empowering participating | |||
approach | |||
Gandalf: I would stake community as a noun | |||
Gandalf: And participation as a verb | |||
Gandalf: It's hard enough to define ... | |||
Gandalf: Like David said, we have trouble remembering this many people | |||
Gandalf: You're in one hundred communities of two hundred million people | |||
Gandalf: you're in community of 200,000,000 ppl using FF | |||
David: I look at this picture and I completely understand it from my position, | |||
I know how pieces fit together | |||
David: I look back to several years ago to when I was a community member | |||
David: with a different day job | |||
David: and trying to figure where I fit there, is a little interesting | |||
David: I think the roots are why I cared about Mozilla before I was really | |||
involved | |||
David: but other parts are not so relevant | |||
David: .... | |||
David: consumer products which are very focused on some smaller set of people | |||
David: If you're not close into Mozilla, which part of Mozilla are relevant | |||
to you are fuzzy and hard | |||
Mitchell: So I'd take from that naming the whole thing The Mozilla Community | |||
isn't quite right | |||
Mitchell: This leads me to think .. don't really have a clear vision of | |||
how this fits into community | |||
Mitchell: .. find it useful, but don't know how to merge it into that. | |||
Mitchell: either don't know how to visualize it in there, or maybe it's | |||
something else | |||
Gerv: Is there a correlation between the tree and the concentric circles | |||
of community? | |||
Gerv: E.g. ppl who are deeply involved, check into cvs, are an inner circle. | |||
people who use our code are an outer circle | |||
Gerv: The further out you go, the less the values in the roots are deeply held | |||
?: It seems like there does need to be a place somewhere there. | |||
?: Mozilla communities- you don't need to fit into and participate in all | |||
the branches to be part of it | |||
?: I like the idea that we could label the whole metaphor community | |||
Guillermo: It's difficult to draw the concentric cirlces in the same image | |||
Guillermo: Maybe the tree rings | |||
Mitchell: I'm inclined to take these ideas back and see if we can merge them | |||
Mitchell: Or if we should keep them separate for awhile | |||
bsmedberg: I don't think the community belongs on that tree | |||
bsmedberg: I think shared goals or shared something define the community | |||
bsmedberg: but if you come up with the shared whatever we are, the community | |||
flows from that | |||
bsmedberg: saying that we are a community without having the shared goals | |||
is backwards to me | |||
Tiffney: I think we're going with this metaphor you can look as community | |||
as ecosystem | |||
Tiffney: You can't dissect the ecosystem from that picture | |||
summary of her comments: Community as ecosystem | |||
Zak: I can't figure out what other community from history we're like? | |||
Zak: There's no form to fill out, no creed. Maybe that's why we're confused | |||
as to what we are | |||
Gerv: The reason that's been possible is the zero-incremental cost of | |||
copying softare | |||
Gerv: 20 years ago nobody could reach 200 mill people with useful stuff | |||
Mitchell: the other thing that came up a lot is values | |||
Mitchell: Manifesto values, that don't overtly show up in that | |||
Mitchell: We could try to distill a few of them, and make them roots or | |||
branches or something | |||
Mitchell: One term I want to use, although it's overloaded, is user sovereignty | |||
Mitchell: Any thoughts? | |||
David: You could just point to manifest, or say manifesto values | |||
David: Manifesto describes a lot of values | |||
David: ... I hate to use the word morals | |||
David: there are some sort of moral underpinnings that drive ... | |||
fantasai: So what I'm seeing here is that the values in the roots are how | |||
we operate, and the values in the manifesto are things we value | |||
and want to create | |||
Mark: .... | |||
Mark: Thinking about where to put the values. We haven't used the leaves | |||
at all. There's unused real estate in the leaves | |||
Gerv: The tree starts small and grows more | |||
Gerv: So maybe the values are suspended in the air, what we're aiming up | |||
Eric: Talking about community, and ecosystem. A forest of trees would | |||
represent our user base or community | |||
Eric: Maybe show that our interest is civic benefit of the forest | |||
Blizzard(?): If you're very far from trees they look very different from up | |||
close | |||
Blizzard(?): Something to think about | |||
Zak: Also some people see trees as lumber | |||
Zach(?): I feel the values belong at the roots, and maybe those attributes | |||
of Mozilla are something that belong as clouds | |||
Zach(?): Raining down and enriching the growth of the tree | |||
fantasai: I don't think that matches, the roots really anchor this | |||
project/community | |||
Mitchell: One thing that's different about Mozilla is our focus on producing | |||
a product rather than being an advocacy organization | |||
Gandalf: I was thinking about what zak said, part of us considers users | |||
part of community or community itself, and others don't | |||
Gandalf: It would be a good idea to claim that the community is made up | |||
of people who consider themselves part of community | |||
Gandalf: So ppl who use product and consider themselves part of community | |||
are, and those who don't aren't | |||
Gandalf: It's a very open community | |||
Gandalf: anyone can decide to participate | |||
Mitchell: So you'd have a user base that was important to our effectiveness, | |||
but you wouldn't consider part of the community | |||
simon: ... | |||
simon: every little bit that you do, besides downloading thu/ff and | |||
installing it | |||
simon: things you do like telling your friend, this solftware is great you | |||
should use it | |||
simon: or publishing a holiday calendar for sunbird | |||
simon: that makes you part of the community, whether you consider yourself | |||
part of the community or not | |||
Mitchell: We have a difference of opinion of whether we consider the user | |||
base part of the community or not | |||
Mitchell: we should be clear that it's different from other communities | |||
?: Going back to Zak's point, .. distinguishes use from other kinds of | |||
nonprofits. Every effective nonprofit chooses a strategy. | |||
?: E.g. EFF chose lawsuits as it's approach. | |||
Brian: We do have advocacy around a certain set of positions | |||
Brian: Our strategy is around a free product | |||
Brian: Because everyone would be tied to MS if there wasn't an alternative. | |||
Brian: We get user power from 1.0 launch onwards | |||
Brian: The balls in our court to define that. How much are users a group | |||
that we want to involve? | |||
Mitchell: So we have some question of whether roots are roots or values | |||
are roots | |||
Mitchell: Any other thoughts on this? | |||
Mtichell: there was use real estate of leaves | |||
??: I don't know where values go on the tree | |||
??: ... people are here not because they care about making good products, | |||
but also they care about advancing values through these products. | |||
??: the values are our goal | |||
??: it's absolutely central, and the purpose of the products is to achieve | |||
that | |||
Mitchell: So I think values is the trunk. | |||
Mitchell: It currently says human interaction with internet | |||
Mitchell: but it's a certain type of interaction that we're dealing with | |||
Asa: We talk about values. We're not just advancing them, we're inventing them. | |||
Asa: We're inventing values for a new world on the net. It didn't used | |||
to have this value landscape. | |||
Asa: Tricky, because we're both advancing them and creating them | |||
Asa: both in terms of defining them, but also in creating them through | |||
products that advance those values | |||
Asa: I feel like our products are the embodiment of our values. | |||
Asa: We invented the values, then invented products to make them real | |||
Asa: It really is the bark that's over the whole tree | |||
Asa: Same way that community and participation are | |||
Asa: We aren't participation because it's useful, but because we believe | |||
it's integral to the web | |||
Asa: For those two in particular, I'm opposed to making it an appendage | |||
Asa: They feel more like circulatory system. | |||
Zach: Where does innovation fit into this? We have this shared bias towards | |||
innovation, show me the code. | |||
???: The roots feel like methods | |||
Mitchell: This would be a question, maybe it's historical | |||
Mitchell: My sense is that those methods are deep enough to be a sense of | |||
identity | |||
Mitchell: I think if you ask the people here, if you could create something | |||
that doesn't have that, wouldn't identify as Mozilla | |||
Gerv: So we can pull this tree metaphor every which way. | |||
Gerv: leaving aside the tree. | |||
Gerv: Things come out of your values via your methods to produce results | |||
Gerv: I don't think the participatory web is a result | |||
Gerv: It's a means to an end which is whatever the people participating | |||
get out of it | |||
Gerv: If that were true, perhaps the roots are the values, the trunk are | |||
the things that are the things in the trunk | |||
Gerv: and what we make are the fruits | |||
Gerv: Maybe we need to step back away from the tree and think how they | |||
fit together, then put them back on the tree | |||
Guillermo: Maybe the values could be the ... the liquid inside the tree. | |||
The sap. | |||
Mitchell: So 2 proposals for changing tree | |||
Mitchell: question of how we work | |||
Mitchell: We're not going to use public benefit, shared asset, to get to | |||
the web would we still feel like Mozilla | |||
Mark: Theres a guy who put out a book called Two Bits, where he looked as | |||
open source movement | |||
Mark: He says that what's different from other social movements | |||
mark: Is that the values and the practices are embedded in each other | |||
mark: not just advocating values | |||
Mark: You kinda have to keep them, they're together | |||
Mark: they're in the roots is right | |||
Mitchell: Want to talk a bit about goals | |||
Look through bunch of stuff on goals | |||
Mitchell: Weren't a lot of comments saying this is a terrible goal, take | |||
it off | |||
Mitchell: where we've got so far | |||
Mitchell: Firefox should continue, momentum, agreement there | |||
Mitchell: Not much comments on Mobile saying no. Most comments are why not | |||
already and here's how to do it | |||
Mitchell: Two things are data and information | |||
Mitchell: potentially most divisive | |||
Mitchell: Mozilla and open Internet has another large set of ideas | |||
Mitchell: Just want to call out what came out from open Internet | |||
Mitchell: then talk about data | |||
Mitchell: For Mozilla as open Internet and Mozilla as community | |||
Mitchell: Some education and evangelism function, both internally and | |||
externally | |||
Mitchell: Internal ones captured best as | |||
Mitchell: There's some way that Mozilla communities grow. Some ways that | |||
knowledge is implicit, but we don't make it explicit | |||
Mitchell: Example, small l10n team. How do you grow that team? | |||
Mitchell: We've done it tons of time, but there's no set of steps | |||
Mitchell: So there's no understood way to do it | |||
Mitchell: we do it well, but it's very ad-hoc | |||
Mitchell: e.g. I found my way in, but I don't know how I did it, and I | |||
don't know how to help someone else | |||
Mitchell: Very strong interest in figuring out how to be clear on what | |||
entry paths work, what are experiences are and how to use them. | |||
Mitchell: We know a lot of things | |||
Mitchell: about scale, l10n, upgrades, etc. | |||
Mitchell: What's path for Mozilla to spread that knowledge to those who | |||
want it? | |||
mitchell: reluctant to have too long list of goals, but that seems like | |||
something that should show up more explicitly | |||
Mitchell: Other thing ins emphasis on content. encourage open content | |||
creation on the Internet | |||
Mitchell: I'd put them as a center piece of the open web or open Internet | |||
Mitchell: Tools we should think about and think hard how to do them. | |||
Mitchell: Anything else missing? | |||
David: I like part about teaching the knowledge and skills that Mozilla | |||
has earned to outside | |||
David: Flip side is we only get to open Internet by collaborating with others | |||
David: one thing I try to figure out is how do we effectively learn from | |||
others, not just tell them this is what works? | |||
Mitchell: so learning to collaborate and inward-bound learning | |||
Gerv: On content creation piece | |||
Gerv: Mark made a good point about content creation | |||
Gerv: The project we are is composed of seamonkey, effectively | |||
Gerv: How do you create content for the web has changed a lot since days | |||
of NS4 | |||
Gerv: Nowadays ppl wanting to put thoughts on web, just get a blog. | |||
Gerv: People that do more than that do ajax-based interactive websites | |||
Gerv: In one sense the content creation part is done. | |||
Gerv: blogs, cms, wiki | |||
Gerv: Or we're not done. | |||
Gerv: Do we make tools for putting content on the web? | |||
Mitchell: Looks like Travel is taking over here | |||
????: Last comments on where it goes and how to continue discussion? | |||
Mitchell: What are good ways to continue this conversation? Clearly not | |||
my blog? | |||
Mitchell: I'm the leader for this particular set of discussions. | |||
Mitchell: if nothing else send it to me | |||
Zak: Wiki? | |||
simon: .. blog | |||
Gerv: good thing about newsgroup is that it's newsgroup, mailing list, | |||
google group, rrs | |||
Mitchell: Will send mail to summit alias | |||
Mitchell: I do have a blog, do send comments :) | |||
ctalbert: I was at OSCON last week | |||
ctalbert: One session from Intel was talking about three challenges on Internet | |||
ctalbert: And one challenge was data. | |||
ctalbert: and how Intel can help you integrate data on the net | |||
ctalbert: that made my skin crawl | |||
Mitchell: the ... is not privacy for each person | |||
Mitchell: My ability to protect my data when I want to, that's Foundation step | |||
Mitchell: Problem is most of you, most of us, will trade personal data for | |||
convenience and features | |||
Mitchell: We're all making those trades | |||
Mitchell And the conceptual issue is that most consumers want some data | |||
to be shared. | |||
MtichelL: and different people make different trades for how much data | |||
for how much free stuff | |||
Mitchell: A lot of consumers want things very different | |||
Mitchell: Of course you can keep data private and not share. | |||
Mitchell: But when you want websites to use data for some things, that's hard | |||
Blizzard: One thing I learned with project I did was vast difference in | |||
expectations of privacy | |||
Blizzard: experience from all over spectrum | |||
blizzard: there's no common language. People don't even know how to think | |||
about it | |||
blizzard: we need to define that language, give them a way to talk about it | |||
blizzard: seems that education function has to be the first step | |||
blizzard: esp outside our space where we've thought about it | |||
blizzard: coming up with framework would be important | |||
Mitchell: Another set of posts lacking comments... | |||
Zak: I think Tiffney really nailed it when she called it an ecosystem. | |||
Zak: our ecosystem is thriving | |||
Zak: we care about our values, most people using firefox don't know and | |||
don't care | |||
Zak: the more we provide value, the more we get a chance to explain to them | |||
about privacy | |||
zak: our product is our vehicle for our values | |||
Mitchell: Advocating privacy and building a product that that allows it | |||
is different | |||
Mitchell: there's an advocacy piece | |||
Mitchell: but I'm interested in building a product that actually protects | |||
privacy | |||
Asa: We can't convince the world that it matters, but we can build a product | |||
that does it, that has features that allows people to manage their data | |||
in a way that protects it | |||
.... | |||
Meeting usurped by Lilly | |||
</pre> | </pre> |
Latest revision as of 03:02, 9 November 2013
--- Log opened Wed Jul 30 23:53:10 2008 Mitchell: Plan to spend 10-15 min on question of Mozilla Identity Mitchell: Look at stuff on flip charts, get an idea of where they fit, how do they fit Mitchell: ... discuss proposed goals Mitchell: I went through this tree. Didn't get any horrendous feedback saying it's wrong Mitchell: Things coming up lately, couple things that need to be represented that aren't Mitchell: One, community Mitchell: It flows through everything we do. In one sense it's implicit in that, in one sense it's missing. Mitchell: So how do we represent the idea of community in that? Mitchell: Do we consider it integral in every cell that we don't need to call it out, or does it need to be called out Mitchell: Second thing is that the values from Manifesto aren't expressed in that diagram Mitchell: I'm not sure where they'd show up or how Mitchell: If they're roots, or if public benefit root picks them up Mitchell: But they are part of how we think about ourselves Mitchell: e.g. is privacy a root, since it's something we value David Ascher: One thing about community that's interesting is everybody uses the word to mean the different things David: I never use it in the singular David: People belong to Mozilla community, but also other communities. E.g. qa community, l10n community David: In these people know each other intimately David: Not like Mozilla community of 1/2 mill David: Community is interesting, but also a loaded term fantasai: maybe think of it as veins that run through the tree? Zak: .... Zak: When ppl talk about community, they're talking about peers Zak: people who are working on the same project, even remotely Zak: How many people think of users as part of community? some raised hands Mitchell: .. goals and improving interaction is connection between different parts of Mozilla Mitchell: support working w/qa e.g David: One that's challenging about scale of Mozilla at this point David: I don't think humans are evolved to work with this many people David: Hard to be in contact with thousands of people David: Our brains are not wired for that David: .. healthy relationships at scale David: So not everybody needs to know everybody else Atul: Question around who to trust around world of the Internet Atul: A lot of users coming to Internet know noting about it Atul: Interesting discussions about security. Users tend to assume that anywhere on the Internet is dangerous Atul: In reality, I only visit a subset of the Internet that I consider to be safe Atul: I will only choose to share my personal info with a small amount of that Atul: Goes into things like kind of software you download Atul: Firefox is a gateway to everything you put on your computer to some extent. Atul: How do you trust Atul: How do you know who/what to trust on the Internet. Atul: There's no real sense of identity built on the Internet. Atul: One thing I think about is doing something, something social. Social network so that my parents could say I trust my son, things that he does... Mitchell: You're talking about a more abstract concept of community Mitchell: A community of trust. A layer that is really different ... Mitchell: I can't figure out livechat (...?) Mitchell: Interesting set of identity, hard to represent as communities get more abstract Zak: If we had this biological model of what we are. Zak: Community is what we create, but also what we need. Zak: Same thing with values in manifest. Zak: Like we're trying to create the environment that we need Zak: create what's in the manifesto Zak: It's kinda like plants. They slowly changed the earth to be what they want it to be. Nicolas: It might be useful to separate community out into a noun and a verb Nicolas: The tree, you can almost put a title that says "The Mozilla Community" Nicolas: One of the roots of the community, one of the shared practices, is about a community approach. Nicolas: About less hierarchical, about creating communities Nicolas: Community is a practice that Mozilla encourages. Nicolas: I think the practice of doing community is something, and the end result is the Mozilla Community Gandalf: There's a term for that, a participatory approach. Gandalf: You can look at hierarchical org or participatory org Gandalf: We're definitely a participatory org. Empowering participating approach Gandalf: I would stake community as a noun Gandalf: And participation as a verb Gandalf: It's hard enough to define ... Gandalf: Like David said, we have trouble remembering this many people Gandalf: You're in one hundred communities of two hundred million people Gandalf: you're in community of 200,000,000 ppl using FF David: I look at this picture and I completely understand it from my position, I know how pieces fit together David: I look back to several years ago to when I was a community member David: with a different day job David: and trying to figure where I fit there, is a little interesting David: I think the roots are why I cared about Mozilla before I was really involved David: but other parts are not so relevant David: .... David: consumer products which are very focused on some smaller set of people David: If you're not close into Mozilla, which part of Mozilla are relevant to you are fuzzy and hard Mitchell: So I'd take from that naming the whole thing The Mozilla Community isn't quite right Mitchell: This leads me to think .. don't really have a clear vision of how this fits into community Mitchell: .. find it useful, but don't know how to merge it into that. Mitchell: either don't know how to visualize it in there, or maybe it's something else Gerv: Is there a correlation between the tree and the concentric circles of community? Gerv: E.g. ppl who are deeply involved, check into cvs, are an inner circle. people who use our code are an outer circle Gerv: The further out you go, the less the values in the roots are deeply held ?: It seems like there does need to be a place somewhere there. ?: Mozilla communities- you don't need to fit into and participate in all the branches to be part of it ?: I like the idea that we could label the whole metaphor community Guillermo: It's difficult to draw the concentric cirlces in the same image Guillermo: Maybe the tree rings Mitchell: I'm inclined to take these ideas back and see if we can merge them Mitchell: Or if we should keep them separate for awhile bsmedberg: I don't think the community belongs on that tree bsmedberg: I think shared goals or shared something define the community bsmedberg: but if you come up with the shared whatever we are, the community flows from that bsmedberg: saying that we are a community without having the shared goals is backwards to me Tiffney: I think we're going with this metaphor you can look as community as ecosystem Tiffney: You can't dissect the ecosystem from that picture summary of her comments: Community as ecosystem Zak: I can't figure out what other community from history we're like? Zak: There's no form to fill out, no creed. Maybe that's why we're confused as to what we are Gerv: The reason that's been possible is the zero-incremental cost of copying softare Gerv: 20 years ago nobody could reach 200 mill people with useful stuff Mitchell: the other thing that came up a lot is values Mitchell: Manifesto values, that don't overtly show up in that Mitchell: We could try to distill a few of them, and make them roots or branches or something Mitchell: One term I want to use, although it's overloaded, is user sovereignty Mitchell: Any thoughts? David: You could just point to manifest, or say manifesto values David: Manifesto describes a lot of values David: ... I hate to use the word morals David: there are some sort of moral underpinnings that drive ... fantasai: So what I'm seeing here is that the values in the roots are how we operate, and the values in the manifesto are things we value and want to create Mark: .... Mark: Thinking about where to put the values. We haven't used the leaves at all. There's unused real estate in the leaves Gerv: The tree starts small and grows more Gerv: So maybe the values are suspended in the air, what we're aiming up Eric: Talking about community, and ecosystem. A forest of trees would represent our user base or community Eric: Maybe show that our interest is civic benefit of the forest Blizzard(?): If you're very far from trees they look very different from up close Blizzard(?): Something to think about Zak: Also some people see trees as lumber Zach(?): I feel the values belong at the roots, and maybe those attributes of Mozilla are something that belong as clouds Zach(?): Raining down and enriching the growth of the tree fantasai: I don't think that matches, the roots really anchor this project/community Mitchell: One thing that's different about Mozilla is our focus on producing a product rather than being an advocacy organization Gandalf: I was thinking about what zak said, part of us considers users part of community or community itself, and others don't Gandalf: It would be a good idea to claim that the community is made up of people who consider themselves part of community Gandalf: So ppl who use product and consider themselves part of community are, and those who don't aren't Gandalf: It's a very open community Gandalf: anyone can decide to participate Mitchell: So you'd have a user base that was important to our effectiveness, but you wouldn't consider part of the community simon: ... simon: every little bit that you do, besides downloading thu/ff and installing it simon: things you do like telling your friend, this solftware is great you should use it simon: or publishing a holiday calendar for sunbird simon: that makes you part of the community, whether you consider yourself part of the community or not Mitchell: We have a difference of opinion of whether we consider the user base part of the community or not Mitchell: we should be clear that it's different from other communities ?: Going back to Zak's point, .. distinguishes use from other kinds of nonprofits. Every effective nonprofit chooses a strategy. ?: E.g. EFF chose lawsuits as it's approach. Brian: We do have advocacy around a certain set of positions Brian: Our strategy is around a free product Brian: Because everyone would be tied to MS if there wasn't an alternative. Brian: We get user power from 1.0 launch onwards Brian: The balls in our court to define that. How much are users a group that we want to involve? Mitchell: So we have some question of whether roots are roots or values are roots Mitchell: Any other thoughts on this? Mtichell: there was use real estate of leaves ??: I don't know where values go on the tree ??: ... people are here not because they care about making good products, but also they care about advancing values through these products. ??: the values are our goal ??: it's absolutely central, and the purpose of the products is to achieve that Mitchell: So I think values is the trunk. Mitchell: It currently says human interaction with internet Mitchell: but it's a certain type of interaction that we're dealing with Asa: We talk about values. We're not just advancing them, we're inventing them. Asa: We're inventing values for a new world on the net. It didn't used to have this value landscape. Asa: Tricky, because we're both advancing them and creating them Asa: both in terms of defining them, but also in creating them through products that advance those values Asa: I feel like our products are the embodiment of our values. Asa: We invented the values, then invented products to make them real Asa: It really is the bark that's over the whole tree Asa: Same way that community and participation are Asa: We aren't participation because it's useful, but because we believe it's integral to the web Asa: For those two in particular, I'm opposed to making it an appendage Asa: They feel more like circulatory system. Zach: Where does innovation fit into this? We have this shared bias towards innovation, show me the code. ???: The roots feel like methods Mitchell: This would be a question, maybe it's historical Mitchell: My sense is that those methods are deep enough to be a sense of identity Mitchell: I think if you ask the people here, if you could create something that doesn't have that, wouldn't identify as Mozilla Gerv: So we can pull this tree metaphor every which way. Gerv: leaving aside the tree. Gerv: Things come out of your values via your methods to produce results Gerv: I don't think the participatory web is a result Gerv: It's a means to an end which is whatever the people participating get out of it Gerv: If that were true, perhaps the roots are the values, the trunk are the things that are the things in the trunk Gerv: and what we make are the fruits Gerv: Maybe we need to step back away from the tree and think how they fit together, then put them back on the tree Guillermo: Maybe the values could be the ... the liquid inside the tree. The sap. Mitchell: So 2 proposals for changing tree Mitchell: question of how we work Mitchell: We're not going to use public benefit, shared asset, to get to the web would we still feel like Mozilla Mark: Theres a guy who put out a book called Two Bits, where he looked as open source movement Mark: He says that what's different from other social movements mark: Is that the values and the practices are embedded in each other mark: not just advocating values Mark: You kinda have to keep them, they're together Mark: they're in the roots is right Mitchell: Want to talk a bit about goals Look through bunch of stuff on goals Mitchell: Weren't a lot of comments saying this is a terrible goal, take it off Mitchell: where we've got so far Mitchell: Firefox should continue, momentum, agreement there Mitchell: Not much comments on Mobile saying no. Most comments are why not already and here's how to do it Mitchell: Two things are data and information Mitchell: potentially most divisive Mitchell: Mozilla and open Internet has another large set of ideas Mitchell: Just want to call out what came out from open Internet Mitchell: then talk about data Mitchell: For Mozilla as open Internet and Mozilla as community Mitchell: Some education and evangelism function, both internally and externally Mitchell: Internal ones captured best as Mitchell: There's some way that Mozilla communities grow. Some ways that knowledge is implicit, but we don't make it explicit Mitchell: Example, small l10n team. How do you grow that team? Mitchell: We've done it tons of time, but there's no set of steps Mitchell: So there's no understood way to do it Mitchell: we do it well, but it's very ad-hoc Mitchell: e.g. I found my way in, but I don't know how I did it, and I don't know how to help someone else Mitchell: Very strong interest in figuring out how to be clear on what entry paths work, what are experiences are and how to use them. Mitchell: We know a lot of things Mitchell: about scale, l10n, upgrades, etc. Mitchell: What's path for Mozilla to spread that knowledge to those who want it? mitchell: reluctant to have too long list of goals, but that seems like something that should show up more explicitly Mitchell: Other thing ins emphasis on content. encourage open content creation on the Internet Mitchell: I'd put them as a center piece of the open web or open Internet Mitchell: Tools we should think about and think hard how to do them. Mitchell: Anything else missing? David: I like part about teaching the knowledge and skills that Mozilla has earned to outside David: Flip side is we only get to open Internet by collaborating with others David: one thing I try to figure out is how do we effectively learn from others, not just tell them this is what works? Mitchell: so learning to collaborate and inward-bound learning Gerv: On content creation piece Gerv: Mark made a good point about content creation Gerv: The project we are is composed of seamonkey, effectively Gerv: How do you create content for the web has changed a lot since days of NS4 Gerv: Nowadays ppl wanting to put thoughts on web, just get a blog. Gerv: People that do more than that do ajax-based interactive websites Gerv: In one sense the content creation part is done. Gerv: blogs, cms, wiki Gerv: Or we're not done. Gerv: Do we make tools for putting content on the web? Mitchell: Looks like Travel is taking over here ????: Last comments on where it goes and how to continue discussion? Mitchell: What are good ways to continue this conversation? Clearly not my blog? Mitchell: I'm the leader for this particular set of discussions. Mitchell: if nothing else send it to me Zak: Wiki? simon: .. blog Gerv: good thing about newsgroup is that it's newsgroup, mailing list, google group, rrs Mitchell: Will send mail to summit alias Mitchell: I do have a blog, do send comments :) ctalbert: I was at OSCON last week ctalbert: One session from Intel was talking about three challenges on Internet ctalbert: And one challenge was data. ctalbert: and how Intel can help you integrate data on the net ctalbert: that made my skin crawl Mitchell: the ... is not privacy for each person Mitchell: My ability to protect my data when I want to, that's Foundation step Mitchell: Problem is most of you, most of us, will trade personal data for convenience and features Mitchell: We're all making those trades Mitchell And the conceptual issue is that most consumers want some data to be shared. MtichelL: and different people make different trades for how much data for how much free stuff Mitchell: A lot of consumers want things very different Mitchell: Of course you can keep data private and not share. Mitchell: But when you want websites to use data for some things, that's hard Blizzard: One thing I learned with project I did was vast difference in expectations of privacy Blizzard: experience from all over spectrum blizzard: there's no common language. People don't even know how to think about it blizzard: we need to define that language, give them a way to talk about it blizzard: seems that education function has to be the first step blizzard: esp outside our space where we've thought about it blizzard: coming up with framework would be important Mitchell: Another set of posts lacking comments... Zak: I think Tiffney really nailed it when she called it an ecosystem. Zak: our ecosystem is thriving Zak: we care about our values, most people using firefox don't know and don't care Zak: the more we provide value, the more we get a chance to explain to them about privacy zak: our product is our vehicle for our values Mitchell: Advocating privacy and building a product that that allows it is different Mitchell: there's an advocacy piece Mitchell: but I'm interested in building a product that actually protects privacy Asa: We can't convince the world that it matters, but we can build a product that does it, that has features that allows people to manage their data in a way that protects it .... Meeting usurped by Lilly