[Foundation] Re: jabber.com for president

Matthew Miller MatthewM at vdr.com
Fri Jun 29 11:45:59 CDT 2001

I've read enough of this.  I too wish this would die, but we have a couple
of miscreants wanting to spoil the whole organization.  With what I have
read of the Council Members (including dev.jabber.org journal entries), none
of them strike me as being mouth-pieces of their employers.

Stephen and Barry, if you believe so strongly that individuals cannot act on
their own merit, then don't belong to this foundation, and don't contibute.
It's that simple.

You two seem to be the _/only ones with a problem/_.  I have spoken some
with StPeter, and have read various passages from the other founders, who
also happen to be Jabber.com employees.  They are not into Jabber
necessarily to become rich (although that's not exactly shunned, either(-:
).  They did this to fill a void, and for personal satisfaction.  Jabber.com
just happened to spring up, believe in their dreams, and decided to pay them
to do it.

This discussion really needs to end.  I didn't want to respond, because I
didn't think it was worth the effort to respond.  But cannot take the
ignorance that is being perpetuated by a couple of "individuals" (or are the
two of you just vocal serfs to your lordly employers?).  Without
understanding who the voted Council members are, you two attack them (yes,
attack is definitely the appropriate word here) simply because they all
happen to work for Jabber.com.

I have said my piece, and that is that.

Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Hebert [mailto:john at vedalabs.com]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 09:17
To: members at jabber.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation] Re: jabber.com for president

6/29/01 2:49:38 AM, "Barry Lee" <bglee at sltscommunications.net> wrote:

I defer to Julian Missig's excellent reply to most of your comments. I did
a need to reply to the following:

>I noticed yesterday when Stephen Lee posted his comments that the first
>e-mails returned were from Jabber.com employees and they refered to other
>employees comments. It is and will be very hard to believe the b____ that
>this employees are all their own persons and their paycheck does not
>influence their decisions.

The reason _I_ didn't reply immediately was that I wanted to see if that
would be ignored and let die first, which I felt it should. And the reason
Jabber.com employees responded in the number that they did was that even
I saw Stephen Lee's post as a personal attack on their integrity as
contributing to the Jabber project while being lucky enough to have a
pay for it. Your message falls into the same category of personal attack on
Jabber.com employees.

I work for a company that allows me and other developers to work at least
part-time producing open source software and sees the business sense of
using OSS (Apache, Jakarta, PostgreSQL, Linux) in a production environment.
My company doesn't tell me what to do, we discuss and come to an agreement
on what to do. If I didn't think my employer was contributing to the whole
OSS effort, I would walk. I'll bet that the Jabber.com employees in question
feel the same way.

>You would think that the people at jabber.com would have realized the
>concerns that the membership at large would have and correct the situation
>before it went this far.

I count only you and Stephen Lee so far in opposition. Myself and more
who are not Jabber.com employees have already posted in support of
and the elected members of the Jabber Foundation Council. I do not this as a


John Hebert
System Engineer
Changing your state of mind through sound. 

More information about the Members mailing list