Being Knowable

As anyone close to the Mozilla project knows, we're a really different kind of animal and one that is particularly hard to describe.  I've tried in the past by saying that "We are a global community and a public benefit organization dedicated to improving the Internet experience for people everywhere." But that misses the mark and doesn't capture the fact that Mozilla is many things to many people, and we're made up of a multitude of voices, interests and passions. (And it also sounds like corporate-speak.)

To make it that much harder, Mozilla has a long and storied history and only recently gained its independence, both organizationally and financially.  To compound the matter, it turns out that the unique legal structure required to fit Mozilla's context and support that independence is complex and easily misunderstood. [1]

For example, I often wish we had chosen a name for what is now the "Corporation" (the wholly-owned taxable subsidiary of the non-profit Mozilla Foundation) that wasn't so highly charged and full of implicit negative meaning to so many people. It's very different than a traditional corporation, with different drivers and motivations --and it hasn't made for an easy starting point when trying to help someone better understand the whole of Mozilla.

At the end of the day, we're unique and imperfect (as anyone close to us can attest), but so far have collectively accomplished things that many believed impossible. 

I don't know if we will ever be able to make Mozilla understandable to the whole world, but I do believe that we need to now make ourselves increasingly knowable to a wider audience so that we can grow as a community (and as a movement) to meet the challenges that lie ahead.

Recent press articles and blog posts suggest that our public weekly project meetings, DevNews blog, Developer Days, Spread Firefox and so on, are only the beginning of what's needed.

- cbeard

[1]  Much more detail on how Mozilla is organized and its legal structure can be found in the detailed FAQ on the reorganizaton and in  Mozilla's legal and tax documents.

Comments

[Jean-Marc]

There seems to be a little syndication problem for your blog entries in planet.mozilla.org . We can see http://cbeard.typepad.com/mozilla
/2006/10/mozilla_and_ubu.html
there dated May 22, 2007 05:14 AM !

[Ian Hayward]

Thats pretty much spot on imo.

Maybe if the corporation had been called something entirely different, say like, Mozmonger Corp or MozFox Corp then my gut feeling is that there would not be so much apparent misunderstanding/interpretation of "what/who/where" Mozilla is.

One thing I do know is that the discussion of all this only proves its still really important more than ever to a whole load of people and that in itself has got to be a good thing.

[cbeard]

@Jean-Marc: Ugh! Yes, it seems that there is some sort of syndicated problem. The Ubuntu post is from last October. Not sure why it was reposted to planet.m.o. Sorry about that.

[cbeard]

@Ian: Interesting point of view. My point there was more that "Corporation" was a loaded word full of negative connotation that makes it more difficult for people to understand the whole of Mozilla. From my experience people get tripped up when they hear that particular word. ("Oh, you're /actually/ a for-profit company! I understand those!") In reality, it is quite different and non-traditional. While, as a corporation the Mozilla Corporation is responsible for increasing shareholder wealth, it turns out that it has and only intends to have, a single shareholder, no stock options, no venture capitalists, etc. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the non-profit Mozilla Foundation, and that shareholder measures its returns in a much more principled and qualitative way.

[Iang]

Opening a corporation was essential, there was too much money involved to escape that. Calling it a corporation was honest. People need to be aware that there is a lot of money involved and it needs to be handled by a professional organisation. A.k.a. a corporation.

The problem with calling it (whatever 'it' is) a non-profit is that traditionally people then assume that all is good, all is clean and just, you can do whatever makes you feel good, and other such nonsense ... then the bad decisions start and the money goes down the gurgler.

Calling it a corporation forces people to think about governance. They may not know how to deal with it, but once the question is asked, the answer can be found, with research.

[raiph]

How about...

Imagine a MoFo slogan: "What Would You Do?"[1]

This slogan serves several duties[2], one of which is to suggest how to evoke conflict resolution language around issues such as the "corporation" confusion that concerns you.

Specifically, "What Would You Do?" suggests genuine dialog as a path for transforming negative feelings and confusion (based on misunderstanding and distrust, eg "I distrust corporations therefore I distrust Mozilla") into positive feelings and clarity (based on understanding and respect).

We could develop related marketing programs that help to clarify and resolve confusion and conflict when it arises, and create materials that reduce how often confusion and conflict arise in the first place.

One plausible program would be a weekly "What Would You Do?" open chat covering one topic each week. Some sessions would cover clearly controversial topics ("What Would You Do With $100m Per Year (Taking Tax Law Into Consideration)?"). I'm imagining a follow up which consists of creation or updating of a FAQ for each topic, incorporating what was said in the chat and any subsequent blogosphere dialog over the next few days.

Another might be to develop an ongoing SFX project whereby SFXers are trained to try a two stage response to misunderstanding or distrust of Mozilla (including harsh criticism or even unbridled attack):
1) Give empathy (with a 40 word nvc[3] paragraph being a realistic and obtainable goal) to set the stage for a constructive dialog and then ask "what would you do?"
2) Constructively engage, taking advantage, as much as possible, of existing stock commentary on why Mozilla is the way it is.

That's a couple programs; I can conjure more all too easily... ;)

[1] I'm seriously proposing "What Would You Do?" as a MoFo slogan. I think it nails a lot of things on the head. I've checked, and this slogan is available for trademark status according to the USPTO web site search.

[2] In addition to the conflict transformation role discussed above, the slogan "What Would You Do?" is strongly suggestive in at least three other useful ways: it is inclusive; it directly invites ideas; and it emphasizes action.

[3] nvc = nonviolent communication. I sometimes call it buddhism 2.0. See cnvc.org.

love, raiph