Wrapping up 'what does Mozillian mean?' discussion

[davidweld...@gmail.com]

There has been a lot of discussion since the Summit about 'what does Mozillian mean?' and I think we've converged on an answer.

The Summit generated three criteria that any definition would need to take into account:

* Belief in Mozilla's mission
* Action to support the mission
* Interaction with other community members

Historically, we've reserved the term Mozillian for people who have gotten deeply involved with each of those criteria. For instance, see Austin King's post about when he identified himself as a Mozillian.

https://ozten.com/psto/2013/10/28/how-i-discovered-i-was-already-a-mozillian/

The conversation has surfaced a need to be more inclusive with how we're using 'Mozillian' to align with our goal of bringing in many more community members. Many people have proposed broadening the definition to include people earlier on as they're starting to get involved with those criteria.

This would mean we'd want to have milestones or levels that mark different points along a pathway of being a Mozillian. This seems to be a general best practice among large volunteer movements. See, for example, the Girl Scouts' levels of involvement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membership_levels_of_the_Girl_Scouts_of_the_USA

So, we propose defining Mozillian more broadly and then using the criteria from the Summit to identify the different levels of involvement. I've updated the community definitions on the wiki with the specifics for each term (Mozillian, User, Supporter, Casual/Active/Core Contributor).

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Community

I've blogged about this proposal and have shared it out widely (at Monday All Hands, Yammer, lists, Grow Mozilla calls, etc) and the response has been positive.

http://davidwboswell.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/being-a-mozillian-is-a-journey/

I'd like to make sure this is also discussed on Governance before finalizing the updates to these terms.

BTW, we may still need some work on the names of the specific levels -- does it stay supporter, casual contributor, etc or do we make variants of Mozillian like the Girl Scout levels? This will be one of the things we discuss at the upcoming Community Builders meetup and we'll share out that discussion.

Thanks,
David

[Gervase Markham]

On 21/11/13 18:02, davidweld...@gmail.com wrote:
> The conversation has surfaced a need to be more inclusive with how
> we're using 'Mozillian' to align with our goal of bringing in many
> more community members.

I'm sure you are not suggesting simply redefining "Mozillian" so we can
more quickly get to the arbitrary target of 1 million. So you must be
arguing that widening the definition in itself means that people are
more likely to get involved, that is, that people want the label
"Mozillian" and are more likely to take a first step of involvement to
get it.

I remain unconvinced that this is so. And I remain concerned about the
community effects of taking a label which most core people use to mean
"us" (in some way), and redefining it to mean "us, plus a much larger
group of people who day-to-day have no interactions with us".

But I've made both of these points before.

> This would mean we'd want to have milestones or levels that mark
> different points along a pathway of being a Mozillian. This seems to
> be a general best practice among large volunteer movements. See, for
> example, the Girl Scouts' levels of involvement.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membership_levels_of_the_Girl_Scouts_of_the_USA

These aren't levels of involvement, they are age-related names. To go
from being a Daisy to being a Brownie you don't do more Girl Scout
activities, you just have to get older. So I don't think this particular
analogy holds.

I'm sure there are other organizations where it would hold. But no-one
is opposing the idea of having different milestones or levels on a
journey of increasing involvement. The discussion is over how those
levels should be named.

> BTW, we may still need some work on the names of the specific levels
> -- does it stay supporter, casual contributor, etc or do we make
> variants of Mozillian like the Girl Scout levels?

If we go this way, I think the names would be better if they included
the word Mozillian. So something like:

Core Mozillian
Active Mozillian
Casual Mozillian
Supporting Mozillian

Users are noted as "may not be aware of Mozilla's mission" so I don't
think they get the label Mozillian, by your criteria above.

Gerv

[Rubén Martín]

2013/11/27 Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org>

>
> If we go this way, I think the names would be better if they included
> the word Mozillian. So something like:
>
> Core Mozillian
> Active Mozillian
> Casual Mozillian
> Supporting Mozillian
>
> Users are noted as "may not be aware of Mozilla's mission" so I don't
> think they get the label Mozillian, by your criteria above.
>

I like this idea, where "Core" would be the trusted group we are working to
identify.

The only problem I see is how we can identify "Active" mozillians. For Reps
for example is easy because monthly reports are mandatory.

Regards.
--
Rubén Martín (Nukeador)
Mozilla Reps Mentor
http://mozilla-hispano.org
http://twitter.com/mozilla_hispano
http://facebook.com/mozillahispano

[Benjamin Smedberg]

On 11/27/2013 5:33 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 21/11/13 18:02, davidweld...@gmail.com wrote:

>> The conversation has surfaced a need to be more inclusive with how
>> we're using 'Mozillian' to align with our goal of bringing in many
>> more community members.

> I'm sure you are not suggesting simply redefining "Mozillian" so we can
> more quickly get to the arbitrary target of 1 million. So you must be
> arguing that widening the definition in itself means that people are
> more likely to get involved, that is, that people want the label
> "Mozillian" and are more likely to take a first step of involvement to
> get it.

I frankly think this whole discussion is a bad idea. But so is saying
that our goal is to have a million mozillians, without being more clear
about why we want a million mozillians and what we want these people to do.

The mostly likely effects of defining what a Mozillian is are either 1)
to exclude people who don't fit the definition, or 2) to start including
people who didn't consider themself a Mozillian before, just by saying
"look you're now a mozillian". Neither of these seems to be a desirable
outcome.

I'm also worried that we're having this discussion at the same time as
we're having discussions about mozilla.org email addresses and the
mozillians.org website and vouching. The three discussions are all
getting mixed up together in ways that are very troubling to me.

For example, I am convinced that everyone who works on Mozilla projects,
whether or not they share our mission at all, should be in the project
phonebook (mozillians.org). We have plenty of partner employees who are
critical pieces of engineering and bringing Mozilla products to market
who may not self-identify as "a Mozillian" but are still part of our
community. We should make sure that we don't define away this sort of
interaction.

At the same time, saying to people "By the way, you didn't know it, but
you're actually a Mozillian" doesn't sound useful either. People get to
be part of a community by doing things with other people and gradually
identifying more and more with the group. Definitions aren't going to
actually change how people identify, but an over-broad definition seems
mainly like a trick to claim people who don't want to be claimed.

About the goal: we're approaching it the wrong way. It seems like we're
saying we want a million people, so we need to define how we measure
that goal, and go get some people and find work for them. This is
dangerously backwards. If we want a million people, it's because we
already know that we've got a million people's worth of work to do. It's
clear that we're never going to get anywhere close to a million people
writing code for all of our current projects and products put together:
Brook's law makes that basically impossible, even if we had a million
able volunteers. So we need to start out deciding why we think we need a
million Mozillians, what projects could actually use more help and what
kind of help they need, and only then set the measurable goals for each
project. Maybe that means radically growing the webmaker movement, which
can probably scale to that size quite well. Maybe that means we need
more projects, or we need to redesign the participation opportunities in
existing projects. But we absolutely be starting out with by figuring
out what we're trying to accomplish, how many people we need to
accomplish each thing, and then figuring out whether that means 10
thousand mozillians or 10 million.

I propose that we stop trying to define Mozillian, and return to the
project defining contribution pathways and commitment/responsibility
"levels" for each part of the project.

--BDS

[Clint Talbert]

On 11/27/2013 05:52 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
>
> About the goal: we're approaching it the wrong way. It seems like
> we're saying we want a million people, so we need to define how we
> measure that goal, and go get some people and find work for them. This
> is dangerously backwards. If we want a million people, it's because we
> already know that we've got a million people's worth of work to do.
> It's clear that we're never going to get anywhere close to a million
> people writing code for all of our current projects and products put
> together: Brook's law makes that basically impossible, even if we had
> a million able volunteers. So we need to start out deciding why we
> think we need a million Mozillians, what projects could actually use
> more help and what kind of help they need, and only then set the
> measurable goals for each project. Maybe that means radically growing
> the webmaker movement, which can probably scale to that size quite
> well. Maybe that means we need more projects, or we need to redesign
> the participation opportunities in existing projects. But we
> absolutely be starting out with by figuring out what we're trying to
> accomplish, how many people we need to accomplish each thing, and then
> figuring out whether that means 10 thousand mozillians or 10 million.
>
> I propose that we stop trying to define Mozillian, and return to the
> project defining contribution pathways and commitment/responsibility
> "levels" for each part of the project.

Yes, this. I've been vaguely uneasy about these threads but haven't had
a chance to sit down and understand why. I think Bsmedberg just
clarified it well. We've had a lot of community discussion and talk, but
I see many teams trying to build community and not starting with the
basics of what it is they want to accomplish, how to bring contributors
online to accomplish those goals, and building the systems for how to
ensure that those contributors have a clear path of increasing
participation and responsibility. And I think the quantification to
understand whether you are hitting your project's community goals have
to be tied to those in-project systems and not to some giant
over-reaching definition that is never going to be specific enough to be
useful to a given project.

Clint

[Majken Connor]

I agree with the very simplest definition, and then you're a Mozillian, I
don't think it is useful to have levels of Mozillian because there are
reasons why some people *Can't* be more active than others and we shouldn't
be excluding them because of that.

I think we all agree that you have to believe in at least part of the
mission, take action to forward that mission and you have to choose to
identify as a Mozillian. I don't think being a user counts as taking
action, though being a user who helps others become users would count.

We may need to identify other roles, like that group who can be trusted
with "internal" communications, but I don't think this should be a level
*of* Mozillian, but rather a level *within* Mozillians.

Using the citizenship analogy, members of government aren't any more or
less citizens of the country. We don't call them government citizens or
elite citizens (we usually call them much worse ;) ) even though they do
more to forward the progress of the country than a regular average
civilian, and have more power to do so.

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Benjamin Smedberg <benj...@smedbergs.us>wrote:

> On 11/27/2013 5:33 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>> On 21/11/13 18:02, davidweld...@gmail.com wrote:
>>

>>> The conversation has surfaced a need to be more inclusive with how
>>> we're using 'Mozillian' to align with our goal of bringing in many
>>> more community members.
>>>

> About the goal: we're approaching it the wrong way. It seems like we're
> saying we want a million people, so we need to define how we measure that
> goal, and go get some people and find work for them. This is dangerously
> backwards. If we want a million people, it's because we already know that
> we've got a million people's worth of work to do. It's clear that we're
> never going to get anywhere close to a million people writing code for all
> of our current projects and products put together: Brook's law makes that
> basically impossible, even if we had a million able volunteers. So we need
> to start out deciding why we think we need a million Mozillians, what
> projects could actually use more help and what kind of help they need, and
> only then set the measurable goals for each project. Maybe that means
> radically growing the webmaker movement, which can probably scale to that
> size quite well. Maybe that means we need more projects, or we need to
> redesign the participation opportunities in existing projects. But we
> absolutely be starting out with by figuring out what we're trying to
> accomplish, how many people we need to accomplish each thing, and then
> figuring out whether that means 10 thousand mozillians or 10 million.
>
> I propose that we stop trying to define Mozillian, and return to the
> project defining contribution pathways and commitment/responsibility
> "levels" for each part of the project.
>

> --BDS
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>

[Mike Hoye]

On 11/27/2013, 8:52 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:

> So we need to start out deciding why we think we need a million
> Mozillians, what projects could actually use more help and what kind
> of help they need, and only then set the measurable goals for each
> project. Maybe that means radically growing the webmaker movement,
> which can probably scale to that size quite well. Maybe that means we
> need more projects, or we need to redesign the participation
> opportunities in existing projects. But we absolutely be starting out
> with by figuring out what we're trying to accomplish, how many people
> we need to accomplish each thing, and then figuring out whether that
> means 10 thousand mozillians or 10 million.
>
> I propose that we stop trying to define Mozillian, and return to the
> project defining contribution pathways and commitment/responsibility
> "levels" for each part of the project.

While I strongly agree with the overall sentiment of this, I think that
conflating the specific goals of the various moving parts of the Mozilla
project with our overall mission to protect and advancement of a free
and open Web is an unwarranted narrowing of scope. We should definitely
avoid any approach that has that weird, unhelpful "YOU may ALREADY BE a
$GROUPMEMBER" cult-mailout vibe, but we should also be able to identify
people who are share our values and are advancing the cause in some way
that isn't on anyone's roadmap, and invite them to the party.


- mhoye

[davidweld...@gmail.com]

> We should definitely
> avoid any approach that has that weird, unhelpful "YOU may ALREADY BE a
> $GROUPMEMBER" cult-mailout vibe, but we should also be able to identify
> people who are share our values and are advancing the cause in some way
> that isn't on anyone's roadmap, and invite them to the party.

Yes. Broadening who we think of as a Mozillian is about giving us the ability to support people as they are starting to do things to advance our mission and to help them identify with the community.

We're trying to lower barriers to entry so that people like Austin can identify as a Mozillian before they've done all of the heavy lifting on their own to get into the core of the project.

We're not trying to give a label out to people who may or may not want it and we're not trying to game things by switching around definitions. There are very practical things that follow from this that are in service to the good ideas people mention in this thread.

I completely agree with Benjamin that everyone who works on Mozilla projects should be included in mozillians.org -- some of those people are the active and core contributors who have historically been considered to be Mozillians and some of those are people who haven't historically been considered to be Mozillians.

Making that happen requires that we have an understanding of who to invite. The Summit gave us the criteria to know who we're talking about and by using those criteria we can identify and welcome all of the people who are in the community.

And I completely agree with Clint that we should help teams learn how to design for participation and connect with volunteers. We are doing that right now and the workshops we've created emphasize the importance of knowing who potential contributors are and welcoming them (something else we'll need the criteria in order to do).

Thanks,
David

[Mitchell Baker]

We want more people to understand the Mozilla mission, identify with it
and take action to move the mission forward. That pushes us to be
inclusive, and provide a welcome, encouragement and legitimacy to
people across a range of different levels of engagement. At the same
time, we want a way to identify the set of people who are actively
committed and engaged in a community of shared effort. A single
"yes/no" decision -- yes, you're a mozillian, or "no, you're not" can't
capture all of this well.

To resolve this, I suggest we identify a range of ways to engage, with
names, so that "mozillian" is part of a continuum or possibilities. I
have a draft proposal. It's related to Gerv's comments, but broader
scope.

I'm utterly on board with bsmedberg and clint's comments re engagement
pathways, this is key. So finding a way to identify people's form of
engagement is also important. To take Benjamin's point re having
contributors from other companies in a phonebook -- I think my proposal
identifies this group in a way that would allow inclusion in contact
lists, without equating them with people who are here because of the
mission.

I'm not so sure each and every category or word is correct, but I'm
pretty convinced that something like this would help us.

The proposal is in the form an image, you can find it here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59716899@N02/11199165833/


Mitchell

[David Ascher]

On Dec 3, 2013, at 7:12 PM, Mitchell Baker <mitc...@mozilla.com> wrote:

>
> The proposal is in the form an image, you can find it here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/59716899@N02/11199165833/

I made a text version of your drawing (with the amazing asciiflow.com) just for fun and for people reading this on low-bandwidth devices:
http://hastebin.com/raw/kucanixecu

+-----------------+
| "On-Call" | +------+
| "Advisory" | +-->| [x] +-----+----> I predict we'll want
| | | +------+ | to identify subgroups
+-----------------+ | | of Mozillians based
+---------------+ ^ | +-----+ | on activity, leadership,
| | | | +-->|[y] +----+ badges, etc.
| Active | | | | +-----+
| | | | |
+---------------+ | | |
^ | | |
| +-------+------+-++
+--------------+ +----+| Mozillian +-----------> Self-identified w/ mission
| Contributor | +-----------------+ Active, or have been active
+--------------+ in Mozilla projects
[any community criteria here?]
Does NOT necessarily +----------------+
self-identify with | Supporters +---------> Self-identify w/ our mission,
mission. +----------------+ donate $s.
Is active in Mozilla
world (e.g. some partner +------------+
employees, add-on & app | Allies |-------------> Self-identify w/ mission
+------------+

+------------+
| Fans +-------------> May love Mozilla or products
+------------+ Not self-identified with mission

+------------+
| Users +-------------> Attracted to and using Mozilla
+------------+ products for some reason

[Mitchell Baker]

hey that is awesome! painful to imagine doing by hand, that's for sure!

mitchell

[davidweld...@gmail.com]

> A single
> "yes/no" decision -- yes, you're a mozillian, or "no, you're not" can't
> capture all of this well.

I think this is a good way to frame this. We are moving a binary yes/no application of the definition to something that can be applied in a graduated way.

> I'm not so sure each and every category or word is correct, but I'm
> pretty convinced that something like this would help us.

It's really interesting to see your drawing and I agree that working on these categories is the next step in the discussion.

There's going to be a group exercise on the levels and names of Mozillian at the Community Builders event next week and we'll report back about what comes out of that.

Thanks,
David

[Mitchell Baker]

Hi folks

I've got two messages on this topic. The first is the question of why a
"million mozillians." In this one I want to address the concerns were
making a definition to get to a number, and that the idea is
self-servicing. The second msg will be a follow up to my post with the
diagram.

First, why are we talking about "a million mozillians?" "A Million
Mozillians" is a way of making the activity "Empower Communities"
concrete. I see this as a fundamental, absolute requirement for
Mozilla. A big part of a long-term legacy, as well as important to the
success of our product initiatives. Done right, communities of people
who identify with the Mozilla mission, are committed and capable of
making it real, can be a bigger legacy than any particular product.
(I spoke about this in a bit more detail in the 2013 summit opening talk
-- https://air.mozilla.org/nature-of-mozilla/ -- at about 28:20 into
it.) I also see the best way for Mozilla to empower communities is to
build a joined effort between paid contributors and volunteer
contributors in our core work. That means that building products,
teaching, learning and empowering communities are deeply intertwined.

"Enable communities" is a key pillar of what we do, but it is a bit
abstract. "A Million Mozillians" is one approach to start to make it
concrete and real. What would it look like if Mozilla continues to be
successful in empowering communities? One criteria of success is that
more people -- hopefully *many* more people would identify with the
Mozilla mission and would say "yes, I want that. Count me in." Maybe a
million. Maybe many millions -- Mark Surman is fond of the Girl Scouts
and Boy Scouts / Guides example.

Some portion of those people will be deeply engaged, becoming part of
the core team. Many more will be more loosely engaged. We want to
inspire and empower more people to identify and support the mozilla
mission *at all levels." Imagine if 1/10 of our user base became aware
of our mission, identified with it, and responded to one call of action
per year. That brings new possibilities. And imagine if we are able to
increase understanding, involvement and capabilities across all levels
of Mozilla's activities. That's the goal.

So I think of "a Million Mozillians" as a way to make that goal
concrete, to aim for something ambitious, and to help us organize to
make this real.

"A Million Mozillians" does raise the question of who is a mozillian.
I'll put my thoughts on that question in the next msg, to keep the
topics separate.

mitchell

[Mitchell Baker]

And now for a different idea :-)

Thinking more about this, I come back to the key goals and I wonder:
perhaps we want *everyone* who identifies with our mission and wants it
to succeed to think of themselves as a "Mozillian" and we want a
different or additional term to identify the core set of people driving
Mozilla and our mission forward.

Here's my thought process:


1. We want a way to identify the people most engaged with Mozilla,
working as part of Mozilla to move the mission forward. We need this
for (at least) two reasons:

a. As a way to identify the team, and who is doing what, practical,
operational reasons.
b. As a badge of honor. we don't talk about this often but it's good
to do so. we are proud of what we do, open source and community based
work has a piece of recognition, and leadership via reputation and
recognition. We're big enough that the informal way of "everyone knows
who's leading what" won't work for us now.

2. We want more people identifying with the Mozilla mission, thinking
"yes I want that!" Not all of these people will be as deeply engaged.
For example, I might consider myself a environmentalist, be a (paying)
member of an organization like the World Wildlife Fun, and respond when
they issue a call to action. That means I've self -identified and am
engaged. I am still however, not the core team that is making things
happen. My focus is elsewhere (i.e., Mozilla), and my support is key,
but I'm not the central moving force leading the larger group to action
or impact.

Mozilla could have many such people. People who see the Mozilla mission
as important, may tell their friends about us,might donate a bit, might
respond to a Firefox "snippet," or any number of otter actions. The
main focus of their time and energy and activities is not Mozilla, but
they understand, recognize and count themselves as supporters of our
efforts.

Right now we're using "Mozillian" to mean item 1. The earlier
discussion has a flavor of protecting the name "mozillian" to that
group.

Perhaps we should be bold and encourage "mozillians" to be a large
group, and find a term that identifies the core set of people and serves
the "bad of honor" goal as well. In this world, everyone in the
'mozilla-verse" other than "users" and "contributors" could be welcomed
as a mozillian, and we would find a way to identify the core group. That
means getting used to the idea that "mozillian" isn't as exclusive or
exclusionary, it's the "big tent;" and we'd identify the core group with
a different term.

I imagine that could feel disconcerting to some, but I'm coming to like
the idea.

Thoughts?

Mitchell

[David Ascher]

On Dec 6, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Mitchell Baker <mitc...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> And now for a different idea :-) […]

This expansive definition is definitely the more exciting one to me.

We can (and will) define various levels of mozillianness, impact, authority, etc., but making the bar low enough that _any contribution_ (including $3, £3 or 3€, or maybe even just “standing up and being counted” brings value to Mozilla as a whole.

I also believe that if we do it right, this “easiest” level of engagement (just saying “I’m a mozillian”) is the first step on a ladder. Once someone has made that first step, I believe it’ll be easier to get them to step up to the next rung up the ladder, because _self-identification_ is such a driver of human behavior.

—da

PS: How old is the term Mozillian? I feel like it’s actually fairly recent, no?

[Mitchell Baker]

Yes, "mozillian" is a relatively new term, the last couple of years maybe.

Your point about the importance of self-identification as a key driver
is really interesting.

maybe that's the reason I'm coming to like the expansive idea, provided
we have good ways of identifing the key participants in our activities.


mitchell

On 12/6/13 5:59 PM, David Ascher wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Mitchell Baker <mitc...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>

>> And now for a different idea :-) [�]

> This expansive definition is definitely the more exciting one to me.
>

> We can (and will) define various levels of mozillianness, impact, authority, etc., but making the bar low enough that _any contribution_ (including $3, �3 or 3�, or maybe even just �standing up and being counted� brings value to Mozilla as a whole.
>
> I also believe that if we do it right, this �easiest� level of engagement (just saying �I�m a mozillian�) is the first step on a ladder. Once someone has made that first step, I believe it�ll be easier to get them to step up to the next rung up the ladder, because _self-identification_ is such a driver of human behavior.
>
> �da
>
> PS: How old is the term Mozillian? I feel like it�s actually fairly recent, no?
>

[Rubén Martín]

El 07/12/13 03:13, Mitchell Baker escribió:

> Yes, "mozillian" is a relatively new term, the last couple of years
> maybe.
>
> Your point about the importance of self-identification as a key driver
> is really interesting.
>
> maybe that's the reason I'm coming to like the expansive idea,
> provided we have good ways of identifing the key participants in our
> activities.

So maybe we should find first a way to define contributors (that move
the project forward) and once we have it, it would be easier for more
people to expand the word mozillian to everyone supporting our
mission/values/work/products.

Regards.

--
Rubén Martín [Nukeador]
Mozilla Reps Mentor
http://www.mozilla-hispano.org
http://twitter.com/mozilla_hispano
http://facebook.com/mozillahispano

[Robert Kaiser]

Mitchell Baker schrieb:

> Thinking more about this, I come back to the key goals and I wonder:
> perhaps we want *everyone* who identifies with our mission and wants it
> to succeed to think of themselves as a "Mozillian" and we want a
> different or additional term to identify the core set of people driving
> Mozilla and our mission forward.

I think we can just call those "contributors", or do we need to
distinguish between driving the mission forward in different ways? I'd
be leaning towards calling all those activities "contributions" of some
kind.

That also means that not necessarily all of those contributors might be
Mozillians, though - but then, people from partners etc. who contribute
some code or work to a Mozilla project are actually driving the mission
forward without necessarily identifying themselves as supporters of the
mission per se.
I don't necessarily see a problem in not having an explicit
distinguished term for people who are both Mozillians and contributors
following those definitions, do you?

KaiRo