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

Part of the 2010 Goals project.

Log from channel irc://irc.mozilla.org/#2010goals starting 2008-10-23 11:30:04 -0700

Link to a time in the conversation by visiting a URL like https://wiki.mozilla.org/Project/2010_Goals/IRC/2010goals/2008-10-23#12:00

---

ZakGreant	Make that, "Ahoy 2010 Goal seekers! Has anyone taken a look at: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Project/2010_Goals 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 https://wiki.mozilla.org/Project/2010_Goals/Timeline	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	https://wiki.mozilla.org/Project/2010_Goals#The_Question	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? https://wiki.mozilla.org/Talk:Project/2010_Goals/The_Question 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 https://wiki.mozilla.org/Project/2010_Goals#Goals)	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	http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/11/proposed-2010-goals/ <-- 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