A few more rough job descriptions, which I’ll polish soon, but may as well start getting resumes now:

First, we’re looking for a jack-of-all-trades web developer. We have a fair number of websites and webapps, and depend on/want to contribute to a bunch more. It’s time we had someone on staff to help us power through those changes. The ideal candidate will have experience with at least PHP and Python-based webapps on Unix/Linux, comfortable with the usual Apache, MySQL, stack (preferably with some HA scars), and be happy to help do some JS/CSS/HTML client-side work as well. The job will include a blend of new web development, maintenance of existing sites, and patches to project-wide apps. Past experience working in open source, distributed, transparent projects is a huge plus. If not located in Vancouver, experience working remotely will be required.

Second, we’re looking for some contractors to help us work on Thunderbird add-ons. A strong JavaScript application developer with good CSS/HTML skills is a minimal requirement, past experience writing add-ons for Gecko-based apps a definite plus. You’ll be working with the Vancouver-based design team and the broader distributed developer community to quickly iterate on add-ons that enhance the Thunderbird user experience. Being located near Vancouver, BC, would be great, but we would consider remote candidates in nearby timezones.

Email jobs at mozillamessaging dot com with relevant background information.

I don’t yet have a full job description handy, but figured I could start with a draft:

Mozilla Messaging is looking someone who can help us drive forward Thunderbird’s test automation framework, tooling, coverage, and community. We’re looking for someone who combines the usual skills we need:

• Strong domain expertise: in this case test automation of a multi-platform desktop application
• Big-picture thinking: you’d be the first paid test engineer working on a huge codebase with lots of developers and millions of users, so the hard thing won’t be to find things to do, rather figuring out what’s the right thing to work on
• Ability to lead and build a community of peers and contributors
• Ability to prioritize and drive your own work, and happy to collaborate with a wide variety of contributors

Our current test infrastructure relies primarily on MozMill, and most tests are written in Python or JavaScript, so solid understanding of those technologies is obviously useful.

This is a unique opportunity for someone who takes testing, engineering, and community seriously, and who wants to have a huge impact on software that is used daily by millions of people.

Relocation not necessary.

Pass the word!

(resume submissions to jobs at mozillamessaging.com)

Firefox releases have cool codenames while in gestation. As Chelsea explains, Firefox picks national parks as codenames, as metaphors for the values that go into making a Firefox release.

The idea made a lot of sense to us, so we decided to follow suit for Thunderbird. Rather than parks, we picked beaches. A good beach is a clear and compelling example of a public good. We can all go to the beach, share in the beauty and poetry of the place, swim, maybe surf. All that’s required of us in exchange is to treat it well — don’t fence it in, don’t litter, don’t crash your oil tankers into it. Yet beaches as a public commons are under threat. If Thunderbird can help beaches and beaches can help make it clear why Thunderbird matters, we all win.

Given the weather outside, it’s not too surprising that the codename for the next version of Thunderbird is Lanakai, in sunny Hawaii. “Warm turquoise green waters brush up against a fine sand beach while gentle trade winds offer a cool relief from the hot Hawaiian days. This beach is great for relaxing on the sand or taking a swim in it’s clear waters”. That pretty much sold us. Also, we can dream about having a Thunderbird summit there someday.

Ashlee Vance wrote a story in today’s nytimes.com (I presume it’s in the print edition too about the business world’s supposed disappointment in the shareholder value of open source based businesses.

I suppose if you ignore all of the companies listed in the article who were sold for hundreds of millions of dollars, and you squint really hard, you can see their point: investors in open source companies in aggregate haven’t made as much money as investors in proprietary software companies. Given how short the age of open source has been, that’s hardly surprising. (Given how open source is missing the boat on services-based businesses, that’s also likely to continue, but that’s another story).

Others will I’m sure criticize the article based on proposing some better metrics for success for investors in open source companies. I don’t really care — what did strike me was this sentence:

The fight illuminates a larger truth about open-source companies: their societal and strategic importance far exceeds their financial value as operating businesses.

Exactly! It’s critical to me as CEO of Mozilla Messaging that it be a healthy business. But my requirements for “health” aren’t those of wall street. They include reaching a state of making more money than we need to operate, but they also include some variation on the triple bottom line, with some additional twists related to making sure that we operate in ways that are consistent with our values.

I was recently at a business meeting where a bunch of CEOs were “networking”. It was fascinating how quickly the conversation shifted when I answered the usual question about “exit” (the polite term for: “get rich by selling the company) with “well, no, I can’t, as we’re owned by a non-profit”. After a period of shock, it turns out that even CEOs (!) are interested in a business that isn’t all about financial rewards for shareholders. It can be about much more interesting pursuits, such as building a team of people who respect each other and work together for a common goal; it can be about providing awesome customer experiences; it can be about making the world better. There are lots of companies like that. It’d be nice if the “business” section of the newspaper spent more time thinking about that and less about how people who are merely shareholders can make money through speculation.

It’s probably healthy for Wall Street to realize that what’s interesting about open source isn’t some magically cheaper way to produce goods and services. To me, what’s much more important are the complex implications like transparency, a permeable barrier between your consumers and your staff, a built-in safeguard against complacency, and ideally a much more human relationship between your organization and everyone else. I look forward to seeing what the Economist’s new Schumpeter column on business says about it, whenever they get around to it.

In the meantime, I’m looking forward to exploring how to work with business-savvy types who are interested in how to make a deeply healthy business. Based on talking to other CEOs of open source companies, I’m pretty sure that just like we can find talented programmers, quality nuts and localizers to contribute to the products, I’ll find some smart business types who will find it rewarding to contribute to the business challenges.