Foundation/galvanizatronbrainstorm

Group 1

• What is the success metric?
  • Number of projects
  • Number of people in the field
  • How successful the projects were and how the project was recognized (awards, citations, etc)
  • Look at how these projects get supplementary funding (how successful the seed funding is) how much of that funding was directly or indirectly a result of funding we provided

• How is it different than blizzard/beard?
  • With evangelism, they are very focus on promotion of technology, whereas we are more focused on practices
  • We are self-consciously trying to change the field (they would go into open science to promote the use of Mozilla products, we would go in to encourage doing their work in the Mozilla fashion)
  • Make sure we work in a complimentary and not competitive way
  • With labs are looking at the community and discipline side, while they are approaching form the technology side. We meet in the middle.
  • Accessibility is a good example. Labs develops the technology and we connect that technology to the people who can implement and use it.

• What does Mozilla specifically have to offer? What’s special?
  • The way that we work. The Mozilla way of working is unique and successful.
  • We can also offer a set of technologies that is unique and can be deployed universally

• Where does the money come from?
  • Self-funding
  • Grants from private foundations
  • Governments

• Are we money and expertise broker?
  • From one side we have money and goals and on the other side we have money going to people who get to use it for their own projects. Functioning much like a VC.

• What are the hot emerging trends? Where is the parade?
  • Open Science
  • Participatory online education
  • Government 2.0
  • Remix culture and open remix culture
  • Next gen NGOs (Hybrid organizations)

• What’s the Mozilla angle? Which is the right parade?
  • The Mozilla angle has to be that web technology is a critical enabler and that participatory practices are vital.
  • Example: Scientists collaborate already. Imagine what they could do if technology served their collaborations better

• What are the risks?
  • Getting involved in things that don't pan out or have world-changing potential
  • Being outside of our comfort zone and area of expertise (eg. Gov 2.0 is further out of our range than Open Science.

• What are the relationships to rest of Mozilla?
  • See answer to "how are we different from Blizzard/Beard

Group 2

• What is the success metric?

1. Use of our tools and technologies increases measurably by community X
2. Community X becomes more webbish as a result
3. The web becomes better in some concrete way

• How is it different than blizzard?

Is blizzard actually part of us?

1. Different audiences - non-profits, education
2. Being a Foundation makes you more trustworthy
3. blizzard is focussed on Firefox adoption (?) and we are focussed on the open web

• What does Mozilla specifically have to offer? What’s special?
• Where does the (outside) money come from?

More grants, less "mass individual donor"

• Are we money and expertise broker?
• What are the hot emerging trends? Where is the parade?
• What’s the Mozilla angle? Which is the right parade?

Education. Video. Parade criteria relates to first, second and third buckets in the other strategy. Some communities are first bucket (obvious how we help them and they help us), some are second (more of a stretch), some are third (probably not worth it).

• What are the risks?
• What are the relationships to rest of Mozilla?

Pretty anchored. Closer in operation and further away in purpose than strategy 2, which is closer in purpose and further away in operation. Tight connection to labs; risk of tripping over them.

(Note: talk about Mozilla Service Week some more.)