what we call evangelization, give talks, explain the phiilosophy behind Mozilla

and why it's important as a browser and not just a tool.

At first, I didn't like the word "evangelism". I didn't usually say

that I "evangelized" Mozilla. I had the same problem others had. For me the word is too closely related

to religion for me to use it as my own, but after a while

it became the word that was closest to easily explaining what I was doing when

I gave talks, especially when speaking about the philosophy of Mozilla.

I'm not a developer and so, in general, the talks I give are

about what Mozilla is as an institution, what the Open Web is, what free software is

My name is Guillermo Movia. I'm part of the Mozilla Community in Argentina

and I work on the localization of products, web pages,

and what the implications are of all that, what it is we do and why I believe it's important ...

and why I like doing it. Eventually, I wound up accepting that

it was a good way to describe it all, that it was okay to use the word "evangelism."

It was during a talk ... no, I think it was it mostly during the first few times

with Chris Hoffmann. We talked about what the underlying objectives were

and what the concepts were that they had formed about Mozilla emerging as a project

and how it would be self-sustaining. Later, when I understood, when I became aware

of the breadth and the importance that the Web could have as a means of communication

which could provide greater opportunity for creativity to each individual and not just to the mass media

I think that, yes, it's pride,

in a sense, like having your stomach tied up in knots, but then all of a sudden

you see it is important, it's really ..., I'm not simply translating.

Mainly I think it's not so much the Web itself as I see it

but rather that each individual, each human being, starts to relate to others

through what can be created on the Web.
For me the web it's like

returning to a place in which relationships were important, giving up somewhat

the importance of the monetary in life, a return to respecting

certain values which have nothing to do the financial economy.

More respect, more interaction, a collaboration.

So, I don't see it as something technological, but the web in fifty

To have more fun.

So, yes, I think that the analogy between the monopoly of banks,

that is, the economic monopoly of the banks, the whole banking system,

and the monopoly of the Web in the hands of a few is completely valid.

Where there is a monopoly or, in this case, an oligopoly in which very few

people have much more power than others, we're going to have difficulties,

... those of us who are outside those oligopolies.

Therefore, I believe it's a good analogy because it's part of the same process,

it's part of the same process which attempts make a monopoly of the Web, in the hands of a few.

If the banks were more decentrailized or if we could break from that system a bit

I believe it would be very interesting, in principle, small communities

many small "movements" begun, which continue.

They are interesting. Especially those that attempted to escape a bit from

the hierarchical structure of society, those that attempted to achieve a greater "horizontal" form of collaboration.

There were groups that functioned via simple commerce or based on the barter of

products, factories revived by the workers themselves. They are all movements

which have ... which sustain themselves because they are much more horizontal in nature

and which have succeeded in spite of being at a disadvantage in an economic system,

enduring due to the horizontal nature of their work.

in that the Web is important and is helping a great deal,

And the thing that helps is horizontal collaboration. The fact that many organizations are

successful, like Mozilla, like other free software projects.

is important because it demonstrates the possibility of a successful, horizontal form of work,

that a hierarchical structure is not needed in order to succeed. That is, it's possible for a project to be

Organizations whose objectives are horizontal, with a search for values

and not for profit. That is, it's not solely a question of economics.

were not fighting for this, the Web would become the same as the

other large mechanisms of mass communication. That is, dominated by a few,

as was the initial "information highway" project of Bill Gates, networks ...

the AOL network, the Microsoft network, the network of ... whomever, Apple now, the Facebook network....

Actually, I believe that if Mozilla didn't exist, we wouldn't see ... the Web wouldn't be much different from

what the other forms of communication are, it would be more about dissemination than

it would be about each person being able to create, to participate in that creation.

I met with people at Mozilla, with Mitchell Baker or Chris Blizzard at that time,

because they have an economic power.

From that we can achieve a situation where people can create and can take part in their culture.

years, giving each individual more power to interact with others

and improve their lives and be happier, which in reality is what we all want.

We are going to have to defeat them. At some point we are going to end up losing

working together as one. In the last crisis in Argentina, in 2001, there were

Yes, and this, this is why I believe it's related to the Web.

a successful project without having an economic objective.

Actually, not just Mozilla, but Mozilla and other organizations

that prevent or try to prevent what we see in other

of the other sectors of society. If Mozilla or other organizations

a strange sensation because it's similar to ... anxiousness

and in the evangelization,

but also the philosophy behind it.