Tag Archives: mozillafoundation

Mozilla and the future of education, part 2

[This is part 2 of a two-part post. Part 1 discusses the future of education and the possibility of customized online educational offerings as a disruptive innovation that might eventually grow to rival and even dominate traditional educational systems. It ended with a question: what does this have to do with Mozilla? I now attempt to answer that question.]

Online education evolves to be user-driven, not vendor-driven

By definition disruptive innovations allow users to do things they could previously not do, or could do only at great expense and/or effort. But while disruptive innovations make users’ lives easier, they typically make vendors’ lives harder, at least initially, because creating truly disruptive products can be difficult and expensive. (For example, think of all the industrial design, usability engineering, software development, and other work that Apple put into creating the iPhone and its simplified user experience for running mobile applications and using the web from a handheld device.)

The first products that embody disruptive innovations thus tend to have a high degree of internal integration and a relatively closed architecture (again, consider the iPhone). However over time the state of the art advances to the point where vendors can create comparable products using modular components communicating through standardized interfaces. (Christensen’s favorite example here is Microsoft Windows vs. Linux distributions; in the mobile space would-be contenders include Android and Limo.) This move to modularity also allows disruption in the commercial system, i.e., the context within which a firm establishes its cost structure and operating processes and works with its suppliers and channel partners to respond profitably to customers’ common needs (Disrupting Class, p.124).

In particular, Christensen and his co-authors believe that the first-generation commercial system for online education is too tied to the current commercial system for education in general, and shares its orientation to expensive one size fits all solutions. They predict an eventual move to a new commercial system organized as a facilitated user network, in which users exchange with each other as opposed to being supplied by traditional vendors, with one or more third parties facilitating that exchange (as, for example, YouTube facilitates the exchange of video content):

[In] the first phase of disruption of the instructional system the software will likely be complicated and expensive to build. … Within a few more years, however, two factors that were absent in stage 1 that are critical to the emergence of stage 2 will have fallen into place. The first will be platforms that facilitate the generation of user-created content. The second will be the emergence of a user network …. The tools of the software platform will make it so simple to develop online learning products that students will be able to build products that help them teach other students. Parents will be able to assemble tools to tutor their children. And teachers will be able to create tools to help the different types of learners in their classroom. … User networks … will be the business models of distribution. This will allow parents, teachers, and students to offer these teaching tools to other parents, teachers, and students. (p.134)

So: modular interoperable standards-based products, user-created content, and user networks within which such content gets created and freely distributed. I don’t know about you, but to me that sounds like something Mozilla knows something about.

Tasks for the Mozillas

Let’s assume that education will indeed involve in the direction of user networks producing user-generated and -distributed content for customized online education. Let’s further suppose the continued growth of a movement to ensure that this and other educational content is freely available for others to use and adapt. This certainly sounds like a movement that is in line with the goals of the Mozilla Manifesto (which notes, among other things, that [the] Internet is … a key component in education …), and a trend we might like to encourage. How we might do so in a manner consistent with the Mozilla DNA? I think the answer varies based on the particular Mozilla entity in question (what I call the Mozillas within the overall Mozilla project).

The task of the Mozilla Corporation I think would be mainly to continue on the path it’s currently on. Any modular standards-based personal learning environment or open learning network is likely to be based on web technologies, and the goal is to have Firefox be the very best way there is to bring the web to end users. There are some particular areas that might be relevant to an educational context, though not necessarily limited to that context.

For example, the Mobile Firefox effort will help bring the full power of Firefox to future low-end 4P computing systems that might be deployed for primary and secondary education, and initiatives to support open audio and video formats would assist in efforts to provide rich learning experiences whose delivery doesn’t depend on proprietary technologies. There might also be some supplemental work that might be called for; for example, robust out-of-the-box support for MathML and other specialized markup languages is clearly more important for the educational market than for the general consumer market to which Firefox is pitched.

Mozilla Messaging is a somewhat different case, and perhaps a more interesting one in terms of how a focus on education (which, again, would not be the sole focus) might help shape a future strategy. As I see it, one problem with Thunderbird is that its user base is often conceived of in negative terms: they’re people who don’t like webmail and don’t want to use Outlook. I think Thunderbird and related technologies need a real constituency, a group of people for whom the product is designed to fit their special and distinct needs, and who respond to that focus with enthusiasm. That constituency might be found within the traditional enterprise market, but I confess I’m concerned about Mozilla Messaging trying to re-fight the groupware wars that Netscape lost a decade ago.

Might Mozilla Messaging be able to find its constituency, or at least a significant part of it, within the educational market? Educational institutions are certainly more open to standards-based open source products than your typical enterprise. Also, to the extent that Mozilla Messaging is about not just email but about the broader market for collaboration and communication tools, the education market certainly has a lot of models for collaboration and communication — one to many instruction, one-to-one tutoring, small group collaboration, synchronous vs. asynchronous, text vs. video vs. audio, and so on. So perhaps this might be a fruitful question for Mozilla Messaging to explore: What types of collaboration and communication products would be needed to support advanced online learning environments, and could Mozilla technologies be instrumental in creating such products?

Next comes what might be called the missing Mozilla. As Gerv Markham recently noted, with minor exceptions (e.g., the HTML editor in SeaMonkey) the Mozilla project has for the most part left to others the task of creating tools for web content creation and application development. Is this an area we should look at re-entering over the coming years? In the educational context, consider what sort of rich content might go into a simple Physics 101 online course: mathematical equations, static and dynamic graphs, interactive simulations of experiments, perhaps some archival video, and so on. It would be a shame if people created, distributed, and collaborated on lots of great open education courses like this, but they turned out to be a collection of glorified Flash or Silverlight apps. Should Mozilla do something about this and, if so, how might it best be done? This is a question that extends beyond the context of education, and I think one that needs to be discussed.

Finally we come to the Mozilla Foundation. What role if any might it play in an educational context? The Mozilla Foundation could certainly endorse and perhaps help shape a particular vision for education along the lines discussed above, and could lend moral, financial, and other support to other groups working on the front lines to make it happen. (By coincidence the proposed new executive director for the Mozilla Foundation has relevant experience in this area.) It could also encourage the Mozilla Corporation, Mozilla Messaging, and others within the overall Mozilla project to make Mozilla-based technologies and products the preferred ways by which next-generation customized online education is experienced by end users; where there are gaps in capabilities, the Foundation could provide some funding and other support to help fill those gaps (as we did with accessibility, for example). Finally, the Foundation could go further and pick a particular subproblem within the broad educational space and seek to play a leading role in addressing it.

Most notably, the Mozilla Foundation has a clear interest in (and has already financially supported) the work at Seneca College to bring open source development methodologies into the classroom. The Foundation could continue and expand upon that work, including working with Seneca to promote the adoption of similar Mozilla-related curricula at other like-minded institutions and the creation of Mozilla-related materials suitable for self-education. Beyond focusing just on Mozilla, the Mozilla Foundation could also work with others to change the entire manner in which the next generation of software developers is educated. This could include teaching software development in a more comprehensive and interdisciplinary manner in which topics like QA and release engineering, project organization and governance, user experience, marketing and evangelism, copyright and other legal issues, and others assume equal importance to traditional computer science and programming language instruction. It could also include expanding the range of contexts within which software development is taught — not just in formal academic institutions but also within informal learning collectives associated with open source projects or other groups of people with common interests and objectives.

Ten years until the revolution?

If Christensen and his co-authors are correct, in about ten years time we could very well reach a tipping point in which the educational system in the US and elsewhere will rapidly transition from the traditional instructor-in-the-classroom model to a model based on customized online education provided on standards-based platforms and supported by a network of teachers, students, and others collaboratively creating, distributing, and recombining rich collections of instructional materials. Today we stand at a point in online education comparable to the late 1970s and early 1980s with respect to personal computers or the late 1980s and early 1990s with respect to the Internet and the web: We can envision the promise of what might come, and have early examples of that promise to learn from and build on. But we do not know exactly how the story will play out, who its heroes (and villains) will be, and whether it will have a happy or sad ending for those of us who value openness, freedom, and grassroots participation. We may have an opportunity to help shape how that story unfolds. Should Mozilla grasp that opportunity? That’s the question I’m putting forth for discussion.

Mozilla and the future of education, part 1

[This is part 1 of a two-part post; part 2 is here.]

Lately there have been a flurry of posts and associated comments discussing possible future activities that the Mozilla Foundation (and by extension the Mozilla project) might undertake in support of its overall mission and the principles of the Mozilla Manifesto. This post is an experiment in thinking about an area the Mozilla Foundation (and Mozilla in general) might consider getting involved in, one possibility out of the many that have been discussed in the various posts referenced, and one of a number of themes that might inspire particular elements of an overall strategy. As usual, these are my personal opinions only.

Educating a constituency for the open web

The particular focus of this post is education, and in particular online education. Why education? Not (just) because it’s a big important issue — there are lots of important issues in the world, and education is only one of them. There are also many nonprofit organizations, private sector entrepreneurs, and government agencies working on a host of education-related initiatives. Why should Mozilla get involved as well?

The answer is that education is evolving (or could easily evolve) in ways that are potentially very compatible with the goals of Mozilla, and there are ways in which we could get involved in education-related initiatives that are consistent with the Mozilla DNA. In effect we have an opportunity to help build a constituency for the open web and the general principles of the Mozilla Manifesto, not through traditional advocacy efforts but by helping to educate (and, in doing so, create) a new generation of web users and participants for whom such principles are second nature.

The disruptive potential of customized online education

Many people project and advocate for a future dominated by openness, a world of participation, decentralized and virtual organizations, and individual empowerment — in essence taking the principles and practices of the free software and open source movements and applying them to all aspects of society. Education is no exception, and thus there is an open education movement as well. The Cape Town Open Education Declaration is a good summary of the goals of the movement, not least because it addresses not just open access to educational content (e.g., as provided by the MIT OpenCourseWare project), apparently the primary initial focus of most open education proponents, but also the broader range of open and collaborative technologies that might be applied in an educational context. This is wonderful work, with lots of exciting projects under way.

However I think we also need some guidance on how, where, and when open education initiatives might be most successful, guidance that will enable us to decide how, where, and when it might make sense for Mozilla to get involved in them. My preferred framework for thinking about these sort of questions is the theory of disruptive innovation created and popularized by Clayton Christensen. Coincidentally, Christensen and his co-authors have recently provided an analysis of how disruptive innovation might occur in the context of education, in the book Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation will Change the Way the World Learns.

Before going on, I’ll note that (having read all of Christensen’s books) I don’t think Disrupting Class is his finest work. It is very US-centric, relies a bit overmuch on ideas such as Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences that are unproven at best, and takes some major detours, particularly after chapter 5. I recommend just reading the first five chapters, and supplementing it with Christensen’s discussion of post-secondary professional education in chapter 5 of Seeing What’s Next. (Or you can just read the condensed version of Christensen’s and his co-authors’ thesis in the article How Do We Transform Our Schools.)

Nevertheless I think the core of the book is sound in applying Christensen’s theories to the topic of primary and secondary education. The key points of the book are as follows:

The problem with primary and secondary education is not lack of innovation per se, rather it’s that the primary innovation attempted is sustaining innovation within the existing system. It is primarily directed at incremental improvements in test scores and related measures important to politicians and their constituents, and occurs within a commercial system (including not only school systems but also textbook publishers and other creators of educational material) that is geared to providing a monolithic standardized one size fits all product

Disruptive innovation within the educational system will occur only at the margins, where there are needs to be filled and problems to be solved that (for whatever reason) are not being addressed by the existing system. Examples include providing a wide variety of advanced courses within school districts that cannot afford to offer such courses in the traditional way, serving student populations scattered across wide geographic areas, and serving home-schoolers and others who have opted out of the conventional educational system.

This disruptive innovation will take the form of customized instruction that is enabled by computer and networking technology but also incorporates a significant human element (for example, distance learning classes that include teacher-led instructional sessions, computer-based drill and practice, student-teacher interaction via email, student collaborative projects, and so on). Over time suppliers of customized online educational offerings will better learn what works and what doesn’t, and will use the experience gained in relatively marginal markets to develop new skills that will eventually allow them to move into more mainstream markets. (Incumbents typically don’t develop these skills because their dominance of existing markets leads them to ignore marginal and less profitable opportunities in new markets; thus Christensen refers to new market entrants as wielding the sword of asymmetric skills and the shield of asymmetric motivation.)

As a result, customized online education will show slow but steady growth in the coming years. Since it’s starting from a very small base, its overall market share will remain relatively insignificant for the next few years. However eventually the effects of continued compounded growth will cause customized online education offerings to become widespread and even dominant. Based on the data available Christensen and his co-authors estimate that although online education offerings account for only 1% of courses at present, they could grow to 25% of all courses by 2014, 50% by 2019, and 80% by 2024. (Note that they include in this total both fully online courses and courses that have a significant online component.)

A role for Mozilla?

This is all very interesting, but how does this relate to the goals of Mozilla, and to promoting the open web? The answer lies in Christensen’s ideas regarding how the commercial system around online education will evolve, based on experiences with disruptive innovations in other industries. More on that topic in part 2.

Mozilla Foundation activities, week ending 2008/07/18

This is my report on activities related to the Mozilla Foundation for the week ending July 18, 2008.

Projects for the week

Here’s a summary of what Foundation-related activities went on last week; for more information about others’ activities please see the blogs published by David Boswell, Gerv Markham, and Zak Greant.

  • Future of the Foundation
    • Mitchell Baker announced that Mark Surman is being considered for the Foundation executive director position.
    • David posted a blog entry with ideas about how the Foundation might support the Mozilla community.
  • Legal issues
    • Gerv called for people to sign committer’s agreements at the Firefox Summit.
  • Grants and related expenditures
  • CAs and related issues
  • Public communication
  • Conferences
    • Zak continued working on the proposed FOSSCoach event at OSCON and related activities, including drafting the schedule and helping to orient the event coaches and participants.
  • Other
    • Gerv met with various people about proposed Site Security Policy implementations.

Upcoming events and activities

  • David, Gerv, and Zak will be attending OSCON (July 21-25 in Portland OR) and the Firefox Summit (July 29-31 in Whistler BC).
  • I will be attending the Firefox Summit but not OSCON, and then will be on vacation for most of the following week.

Mozilla Foundation activities, week ending 2008/07/11

This is my report on activities related to the Mozilla Foundation for the week ending July 11, 2008.

Projects for the week

Here’s a summary of what Foundation-related activities went on last week; for more information about others’ activities please see the blogs published by David Boswell, Gerv Markham, and Zak Greant.

Upcoming events and activities

  • David, Gerv, and Zak will be attending OSCON (July 21-25 in Portland OR) and the Firefox Summit (July 29-31 in Whistler BC). I will be attending the Firefox Summit but not OSCON.

Mozilla Foundation activities, week ending 2008/07/04

This is my report on activities related to the Mozilla Foundation for the week ending July 4, 2008. My apologies for the delay in posting this.

Projects for the week

Here’s a summary of what Foundation-related activities went on that week; for more information about others’ activities please see the blogs published by David Boswell, Gerv Markham, and Zak Greant.

  • Mozilla Foundation future
  • Grants and related expenditures
    • Peter Jaros completed work on his Camino scriptability project (a 2007 grant); for more information see bugs 390072 (preliminary support), 385989 (windows and tabs), and 390846 (bookmarks).
    • I received and started reviewing two new accessibility-related grant applications.
  • CAs and related issues
    • I started the first public comment period for EV-related requests from GlobalSign.
  • Public communication
  • Conferences
    • Zak continued work on the proposed FOSSCoach event at OSCON.
  • Other
    • Gerv continued work on projects from last week, including tracking Google Summer of Code work for Mozilla-related projects, updating the public suffix list, working toward the proposed Bugzilla reorganization, reviewing a new proposal for site security policies, posting a proposal for replacing the Despot system, and various other things.

Upcoming events and activities

  • David, Gerv, and Zak will be attending OSCON (July 21-25 in Portland OR) and the Firefox Summit (July 29-31 in Whistler BC). I will be attending the Firefox Summit but not OSCON.

Mozilla Foundation activities, week ending 2008/06/27

This is my report on activities related to the Mozilla Foundation for the week ending June 27, 2008. My apologies for the delay in posting this.

Projects for the week

Here’s a summary of what Foundation-related activities went on that week; for more information about others’ activities please see the status reports published by David Boswell, Gerv Markham, and Zak Greant.

  • Mozilla Foundation future
  • CAs and related issues
    • I gave final approval for Entrust‘s request to enable the Entrust Root Certification Authority for EV (bug 416544) and filed bug 442561 against PSM to have the change made.
  • Public communication
  • Conferences
  • Other
    • Gerv worked on a number of projects, including tracking Google Summer of Code work for Mozilla-related projects, updating the public suffix list, working toward the proposed Bugzilla reorganization, reviewing a new proposal for site security policies, posting a collection of “party favors” for Mozilla/Firefox parties, and various other things.
    • David was on vacation that week.

Upcoming events and activities

  • David, Gerv, and Zak will be attending OSCON (July 21-25 in Portland OR) and the Firefox Summit (July 29-31 in Whistler BC). I will be attending the Firefox Summit but not OSCON.

What is the Mozilla DNA?

In my last post I referred to the Mozilla DNA, a term I picked up from Mitchell and used in the course of discussing what role(s) the Mozilla Foundation might take on in future. However I’m not sure Mitchell (or anyone else for that matter) has ever precisely defined what the Mozilla DNA actually consists of, so before going on I thought I’d write down my own personal opinions on the matter.

By analogy with biology, the Mozilla DNA is what makes Mozilla unique, differentiates the project and its various embodiments (the Mozilla Foundation, the Mozilla Corporation, Mozilla Messaging, and so on) from other initiatives, and equips it to potentially take on various tasks (more or less successfully, as the case may be). This DNA includes (among other things) the type of project Mozilla has been and is, the types of activities it has traditionally engaged in, the types of people (i.e., in terms of skills, motivations, values, etc.) that have traditionally engaged in those activities, and the mechanisms by which the people and activities have been coordinated.

More specifically, I think the following are key elements of Mozilla DNA:

  • an emphasis on doing things as opposed to (just) talking about them (implementation vs. advocacy)
  • a focus on individual users and on creating products and related services that touch those users directly, as opposed to providing infrastructure (plumbing) for use by others to create those products and services
  • a reliance on decentralized collaborative development within a meritocratic structure, with lots of opportunities for people to progress from casual users to core contributors to both technical and non-technical activities
  • a commitment to openness and the public good (as embodied in the Mozilla Manifesto), including adherence to the general principles underlying open source and free software licensing
  • the employment of a mixture of noncommercial and commercial strategies and organizational structures, accompanied by a surrounding ecosystem of both noncommercial and commercial ventures
  • an ambition to operate on a worldwide basis and touch the lives of hundreds of millions of people
  • a reliance on organic growth fueled primarily by grass-roots adoption by individual users
  • the vision and resources to operate on a long time horizon (10 years or longer)

In my opinion any potential new activities for the Mozilla Foundation and the project as a whole must be consistent with as many of these elements as possible, and many candidate activities can be rejected due to their mismatch with Mozilla DNA. For those activities that are a match, some might represent straightforward extensions of current activities (e.g., developing more software products), while others might be new and different kinds of activities that can leverage existing project capabilities (e.g., supporting participatory development of non-software content).

I’ll come to the question of the match between potential Mozilla activities and Mozilla DNA in a future post. In the meantime I welcome any additions or correction to the above list.

Creating Mozilla Foundation 2.0

Recently Mitchell posted her thoughts on how the Mozilla Foundation might go about expanding the scope of its activities, in response to posts from various other people. Mark Surman’s post in particular is interesting in its proposal for how the Mozilla Foundation might adopt a broader and more participatory approach to defining its future scope and role; to some degree his proposal contrasts with Mitchell’s thoughts about building concentric circles starting with the current focus on software development, where [the] next circle out would be pretty closely related to this, the next circle a little less so, and so on.

I think what we’re trying to do here is analogous to creating a product roadmap and a product plan for the next release, in essence defining what Mozilla Foundation 2.0 should look like. As with a product plan, one approach is to look at existing product features of the Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla generally and see how they could be incrementally improved and extended; I read Mitchell’s concentric circles idea as an example of this.

Another approach is analogous to product planning based on user feedback, market research, and so on: do lots of brainstorming (the more brains the better) on what overall goals people might want the Mozilla Foundation to help facilitate, evaluate the various goals to see how they fit with the Foundation’s and Mozilla’s nature and resources, and then decide which to pursue. These approaches are not mutually exclusive of course: new product releases typically incorporate a mix of enhanced features and completely new features.

As I see it, with his scaffolding + support + investment idea Mark is proposing a particular type of participatory approach to defining how to create an open web, with the Mozilla Foundation encouraging the generation and collection of new ideas and providing a platform for people to do this (the scaffolding phase), working with others to filter the entire set of ideas down to a suitable subset (the support phase), and then proceeding to implementation for a smaller subset (the investment phase). I think this general approach is worth looking at, with the actual details (how do we encourage people to contribute ideas? should we set up a wiki for collection of ideas? should we give people grants to flesh out ideas?) up for discussion.

Of course in practice user feedback can be of limited value. When planning a new product release many of the ideas submitted by users are either quite limited in scope (fix this bug) or are too vague or broad to be useful (make it work better). However I still think seeking broader input is useful: We can gauge the popularity of ideas already proposed, see if there are fairly obvious possibilities previously overlooked for some reason, determine broad themes in terms of what people are looking for, and quite possibly get some genuinely useful and interesting new ideas. Since encouraging participation is one of Mozilla’s core values, having a more participatory process for planning the future of the Mozilla Foundation makes eminent sense.

A key challenge in doing this successfully will be qualifying proposed ideas to see which might be most suitable. I think we should judge proposals on at least two criteria:

  • How and to what extent will they advance the cause of an open participatory web?
  • How consistent are they with the Mozilla DNA.

Using the second criterion requires that we have a reasonable consensus on what the Mozilla DNA actually is. I’ll write more on this topic in my next post.

Mozilla Foundation activities, week ending 2008/06/13

This is my report on activities related to the Mozilla Foundation for the week ending June 13, 2008.

Projects for the week

Here’s a summary of what Foundation-related activities went on last week; for more information about others’ activities please see the weekly status reports published by David Boswell, Gerv Markham, and Zak Greant.

  • Grants and related expenditures
    • I updated the list of Mozilla Foundations grants and related expenditures for 2007 to include all items approved in 2007.
    • Gary Bishop of the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill published information on the atool project, a follow-on project to an earlier Mozilla Foundation-funded project to enable people with physical disabilities to do keyboard input using commodity webcam hardware.
  • Legal issues
  • CAs and related issues
    • Kathleen Wilson updated the pending CA request list to reflect current information received from CAs; she’s still waiting on information from several CAs.
  • Public communication
  • Conferences
    • Zak continued work on the proposed FOSSCoach event at OSCON.
  • Other
    • Gerv continued work on a project to calculate what percentage of the world’s Internet users have a localized version of Firefox available in their native language.

Upcoming events and activities

  • The Mozilla Foundation will be a sponsor of the Personal Democracy Forum conference (June 23-24 in New York NY). Brian Behlendorf will be speaking there, and I’m also planning to attend.
  • David, Gerv, and Zak will be attending OSCON (July 21-25 in Portland OR) and the Firefox Summit (July 29-31 in Whistler BC). I will be attending the Firefox Summit but not OSCON.

Mozilla Foundation activities, week ending 2008/06/06

This is my report on activities related to the Mozilla Foundation for the week ending June 6, 2008.

Projects for the week

Here’s a summary of what Foundation-related activities went on last week; for more information about others’ activities please see the weekly status reports published by David Boswell, Gerv Markham, and Zak Greant.

  • Grants and related expenditures
    • Alexander Surkov completed the intermediate milestone on his Mozilla Foundation-funded project to develop automated tests and regression fixes in the Mozilla accessibility module; so far he’s fixed 16 outstanding bugs (relating to crashes, regressions, and new features), as well as kept the accessibility API documentation up to date and worked on several other accessibility-related tasks.
    • Proceedings, slides, and an attendee list have now been published for the Foundations of Open Media Software 2008 workshop, for which the Mozilla Foundation was a sponsor.
  • Legal issues
  • CAs and related issues
    • Gerv proposed some ideas as to how we might address the Debian weak key problem in a Mozilla context.
    • Kathleen Wilson is waiting on responses from CAs to close out her information-gathering work on their requests. I worked with her to identify a set of new requests to look at, including those for Trustis (bug 324126), Microsec Ltd (bug 370505), S-TRUST (bug 370627), and TC TrustCenter (bug 378882).
    • I put Entrust‘s request to enable the Entrust Root Certification Authority for EV (bug 416544) into the first public comment period.
  • Public communication
    • David Boswell continued work on a new http://www.mozilla.org design brief.
    • David worked to help produce a new draft of the proposed Mozilla brochure and get model release forms signed for people whose photos appear in the brochure.
  • Conferences
    • Zak Greant continued work on the proposed FOSSCoach event at OSCON.
  • Other
    • Gerv Markham worked on a project to calculate what percentage of the world’s Internet users have a localized version of Firefox available in their native language.
    • Gerv also worked on a project to compile a definitive domain suffix list, e.g., suffixes like “co.uk” that do not themselves refer to web sites (unlike, e.g., “co.org”); this list could be useful in contexts like handling of cookies, bookmarks, etc.

Upcoming events and activities

  • The Mozilla Foundation will be a sponsor of the Personal Democracy Forum conference (June 23-24 in New York NY). Brian Behlendorf will be speaking there, and I’m also planning to attend.
  • David, Gerv, and Zak will be attending OSCON (July 21-25 in Portland OR) and the Firefox Summit (July 29-31 in Whistler BC). I will be attending the Firefox Summit but not OSCON.