Project/2010 Goals/IRC/2010goals/2008-10-23

From MozillaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of the 2010 Goals project.

Log from channel irc:// starting 2008-10-23 11:30:04 -0700

Link to a time in the conversation by visiting a URL like

ZakGreant Make that, "Ahoy 2010 Goal seekers! Has anyone taken a look at: and friends?" 11:47
dria looking now 11:48
ZakGreant Thanks! 11:52
dria I have a problem with saying that the 2010 Goals project is about answering that question. Answering that question would amount to compiling a list of tasks, which isn't really what we're doing here. 11:54
dria i think what we're doing is more coming up with a more meta level of "things we want to accomplish" which will then inform the list of "things we're going to do to accomplish those goals" 11:55
dria but that may be quibbling 11:55
ZakGreant I'm happy to have things rephrased. Right now I'm trying to do the boring structure work so that we can get down to the business of discussing. :) 11:57
dria yah for sure 11:58
dria i think the structure and whatnot is ok. not a huge fan of using a wiki for discussion, but that's not really something I'll quibble about :) 11:59
dria i'd like to see us write things to make them as engaging as possible to our community 11:59
ZakGreant I don't think that we will do much discussion in the wiki. I think that we will mostly collect an organized version of the discussions in the wiki. 12:00
dria goals discussions tend to get a bit of a "meh" reaction from people because they do tend to be abstract and sort of meta/boring 12:00
dria we really need to communicate why this stuff is so important, and why they should care 12:00
ZakGreant wonders why he said "get down to the business of discussing" as that isn't what he meant. :) 12:00
dria  :) 12:00
ZakGreant nod 12:00
ZakGreant Back when we were discussing the manifesto, we didn't get much feedback. I think that we have a similar challenge here - how do we make it so that people not only understand why it matters but that they also are willing to really think about the issue. 12:02
dria there's also a chance that people know that there's a core of people they trust who do care and who will take care of it 12:04
ZakGreant I think that the local coordination of discussions will help, as will being able to show people that we are working with their input. 12:04
dria i allow myself the luxury of ignoring huge swathes of project activity because i trust that the folks involved will do what needs doing 12:05
dria yeah the local "telephone tree" thing is a fantastic idea 12:05
ZakGreant *nod* .. but that effect leads to some important things getting mostly ignored until there is some crisis. 12:05
DGMurdockIII thunderbird need be consider in the 2010 goals and also you guys shold tro to thik about what what the internet will be like in about about a littel less that 2.5 years 12:07
ZakGreant DGMurdockIII: Agreed. 12:08
DGMurdockIII and i thnk firefox shold more strictly folloow the W3C stander and mozzila should even look to help shape it 12:09
ZakGreant So. Where do we capture stuff like this? The wiki? 12:09
dria are the Messaging guys engaged in this discussion yet? 12:09
ZakGreant dria: I think that they aren't really engaged yet. 12:09
DGMurdockIII what about the calander people 12:10
dria Capturing discussions like these in the wiki would be good, eyah 12:10
dria either attaching full logs or posting summaries 12:11
dria summaries would be more immediately useful 12:11
ZakGreant DGMurdockIII: IIRC, I've seen comments from them in Mitchell's blog. 12:11
ZakGreant dria: +1 12:11
DGMurdockIII on the 2010 goals 12:11
dria zak: I think we should get dmose or someone to be a coordinator for the Messaging-related community discussions 12:12
dria to make absolute sure they do get involved 12:12
dria also, i'm not a good person to have for the whole "mozilla developer" community. that's a huge community 12:13
dria also, i'm going to be away for three weeks in the very near future 12:13
ZakGreant dria: Agreed. dmose is teh awesome 12:14
ZakGreant dria: No worries. I was just playing fast and loose with the wiki. Edit your entry as needed. :) 12:14
dria yeah just have to come up with a way to break that community down into bite sized pieces and get reps for them 12:14
 » dmose joined the chat room. 12:15
dria ahoy dmose 12:15
dmose hiya 12:15
ZakGreant goes looking for a knife and fork ;) 12:15
ZakGreant hey dmose 12:15
dmose i hear folks were wondering about messaging involvement 12:15
dmose in the goals discussion 12:15
dria just want to make sure your part of the world is represented 12:16
 » wsmwk joined the chat room. 12:16
dmose i'm hoping to catch up on the latest bloging and blog something myself soon 12:16
ZakGreant I've got a timeline of major posts/discussions started at 12:17
ZakGreant That can make it easier to follow the broad discussion. I need to write better summaries. 12:17
 » emre joined the chat room. 12:17
dmose ZakGreant: ooh, helpful. thanks! 12:17
ZakGreant dmose: No problem. :) 12:18
ZakGreant dria: Any thought on how to tweak the question or its presentation? I've takin it right from one of Mitchell's posts, but that doesn't mean that it is right? 12:20
ZakGreant 12:20
dria yeah i'll have to think about it a bit 12:21
ZakGreant *nod* 12:21
dria my worry is that we'll end up generating a list of essentially random ideas for tasks we should do, rather than coming up with the fundamental guiding principles that should be the foundation for the tasks we take on 12:21
dria but communicating that is tricksy 12:22
ZakGreant Perhaps drop some notes in the talk page? What you said at the beginning of our conversation would be a good fit. 12:23
 » DGMurdockIII left the chat room. 12:23
dmose dria: i dunno, the sentence you just used "my worry..." was pretty clear 12:23
dmose dria: you could just use that 12:23
dmose assuming, of course, that it really is important that everything be derived from a small set of principles 12:24
dmose which i'm not sure is necessarily the case 12:24
dria yeah 12:25
dria so what i've seen happen in the past is that instead of creating a list of goals, we end up creating a list of tasks 12:26
dria and i'm trying to figure out how to avoid that here 12:26
dmose ok, that's fair 12:26
dria and answering the question "what should we do with our products and product processes in the next two years?" is more likely to generate tasks than goals 12:28
 » emre is now known as emre_yemekte. 12:28
dmose one could imagine inverting the process 12:28
dmose which is to say, ask that tasks question 12:28
dmose then look for patterns in the resulting task-set 12:28
ZakGreant Which is one of the ways that Mitchell framed it (though she did qualify this with the little fragment at 12:28
dria then derive the goals from that 12:28
dria yeah that could work 12:28
dria it's such a fine line sometimes 12:29
dmose it might well end up that there are a bunch of clear goals along with some set of "misc" tasks that should be on the list even though they don't taxonomically sort into one of the goal buckets 12:29
 » DGMurdockIII joined the chat room. 12:30
dria possible, yeah 12:30
dria i guess goals answer the "why are we doing these things?" and the tasks are the "how are we doing these things?" 12:31
dmose yeah 12:31
dria as written, the goals list doesn't really hit the why 12:31
dria that might be a problem? 12:32
dria <-- the list i mean 12:32
dria not sure if that's the most current version or not 12:32
ZakGreant My next step with the wiki is to take the goals that have been, give each its own page and then tie in the feedback that people have had. This will let us more easily spot the patterns. 12:33
dmose agreed that those goals don't answer why, not sure whether that's a problem or not 12:33
ZakGreant I think that a lot of the why is tied up in the manifesto (or the next rev of the manifesto) 12:33
dria yeah, maybe i'm thinking about this the wrong way 12:33
dria is there a new rev of the manifesto? 12:34
ZakGreant There should be. :) 12:34
dmose i'm having a hard time imagining this mapping to any sort of "pure" process, whether top-down or bottom-up 12:34
ZakGreant *nod* 12:34
dria yeah true enough 12:34
dria getting people talking about it in any fashion is the real challenge 12:35
dmose because a bunch is based on our feelings of what the current problems are 12:35
dmose but that by itself isn't really sufficient 12:35
dria zak: what's wrong with the current version of the manifesto? 12:35
dria just curious, i haven't looked at it in a long time 12:35
dmose right, time to participate in discussion is definitely a very scare resource amount busy folks 12:35
ZakGreant dria: bingo - getting people discussing is the key 12:36
dmose s/amount/among/ 12:36
 » Standard8 joined the chat room. 12:37
ZakGreant dria: I think that, while the maifesto is fine, giving it a light rev as part of this process gives us a chance to make it more relevant to people. It is supposed to be our lighthouse and instead it seems hardly referenced. 12:37
dria i think it gets referenced pretty often 12:38
dria i agree that perhaps it should be referenced as part of this process 12:38
dria since it is the absolute foundation for the goals we're devising 12:39
dmose totally 12:40
dmose there needs to be feedback between this goals process and the manifesto 12:40
ZakGreant +1 12:40
dria if needed 12:40
dria i don't think revising the manifesto should be a goal unto itself, just something we'll do if the goals process ends up indicating is needed 12:41
ZakGreant *nod* 12:41
dria but yeah, we should revisit the manifesto critically whenever these sorts of discussions arise 12:42
dria it should be part of the overall process 12:42
dria it is a living document, after all 12:42
ZakGreant +1 12:43
dmose agreed 12:44
ZakGreant is taking a call 12:44
ZakGreant .oO(That was fast) 12:45
dria  :) 12:47
ZakGreant Any suggestions or comments on how the wiki pages are structured? 12:48
 » wsmwk is now known as wsmwk_away. 12:48
dria zak: so most of the summarized discussions will appear on that first page? 12:50
dria or will there be a sub page per goal? 12:50
dria oh you say right there 12:51
ZakGreant Sub-page per goal, with summaries ... 12:51
ZakGreant  :) 12:51
dria i'd really like to have a paragraph (from mitchell or someone) about *why* we feel each of those things is important 12:52
ZakGreant *nod* 12:52
dria and I think reducing them each goal to a single word might not be the right approach 12:53
dria "internet" doesn't carry the same meaning as "Deepen Mozilla’s role as a centerpiece of the Internet" 12:53
dria on the other hand the "mobile" goal needs to be expanded 12:53
dria because "mobile" doesn't really say a whole lot 12:53
dria each should be an action. deepen, build, provide, ...etc 12:54
ZakGreant I'm just using single words for broad categorization and for linking convenience. ...#mobile is easier than ...#become_the_leading_mobile_... 12:54
ZakGreant Under each category, we'll have descriptive goal names 12:55
dria sure 12:55
dria i'm really more saying that the goals-as-written probably need to be revised 12:55
dria they should be consistently structured and carry equal weight and meaning 12:56
ZakGreant agreed 12:56
 » dmose left the chat room. 13:02
 » Standard8 is now known as Standard8Away. 13:08
 » emre_yemekte is now known as emre. 13:11
 » emre left the chat room. 13:27
 » Standard8Away is now known as Standard8. 13:41
DGMurdockIII While openness and standards are good on itself as they drive innovation in areas where it makes the most impact for users, there's still something better to achieve: *easy* openness and standards. 14:22
DGMurdockIII Whether an author decides to start up his IDE or log on to his favorite CMS, he shouldn't care whether his code is standards compliant or not. 14:22
DGMurdockIII To do so Mozilla needs to: 14:22
DGMurdockIII - reach (at least) open source CMS projects to help make them as web standards and open as possible 14:22
DGMurdockIII deliver an integrated content creation tool that enables web developers and authors to produce open content, whether it is static or dynamic text content, video, audio, 2D/3D animation, forms, applications, etc. in a way that matches or exceeds competitive proprietary tools like Flash, Silverlight, QuickTime, Real, Windows Media Player, etc. 14:23
DGMurdockIII In some cases, where there's already appropriate support for certain open standard back it as much as possible, making it the brain-dead option for content providers. A recent example of this is native support for Ogg Vorbis and Theora. PNG, SVG, MathML, are other examples. ODF is an example of a gap that could be closed. 14:23
DGMurdockIII This doesn't necessarily mean that Mozilla should build all of these tools, but should ensure the options are there and help them become more viable whether they need infrastructure, usability/design expertise, community growing expertise, etc. 14:23
DGMurdockIII I believe the time is now. Having five main browsers (IE, Opera, Safari, Firefox, Chrome) racing in so many areas for users preference is a good signal. But if most people understand it is not, then some kind of metric must be set to determine when will it be the appropriate time for Mozilla to get involved. 14:24
DGMurdockIII I would include: "5. Facilitate open web content creation." 14:24
DGMurdockIII We also need metrics for all set goals, but I guess that could be subject of a future post and discussion. 14:25