[Foundation] Re: jabber.com for president

Terry Smelser tsmelser at sltscommunications.net
Fri Jun 29 14:58:54 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),
> of them strike me as being mouth-pieces of their employers.

Then you haven't been watching closely. A large amount of the responses,
especially the offended, hurt kind, came immediately from the J.C.
types....one right after another...almost like it had been planned,
addressing the same points from different angles.......within MOMENTS of
each other.....individuals acting on their own merit...not as MOUTH-PIECES
of the same employer...

If you found that Steve and Barry were the only ones with a problem, you
didn't read the whole thread or the other thread that sprang from it.
You do strike on a very valid idea that perhaps 'we' should not belong to
the foundation and should not contribute to it, THAT is a very real
possibility, that is currently (and has been) under discussion. We can
certainly pick up our toys and go play on someone else's field. (and there
are other games in town)
It has never been stated by any member of this organization that there is an
issue with MAKING MONEY from Jabber, not by jabber.com or anyone else. 'WE"
are specifically in this TO MAKE MONEY. Read our history, posted on either
of our websites, to get an idea of who we are, and what we are doing..
before flaming any of us.

Our concerns are  that in an organization, so heavily toploaded with people
from the same group, with the same interests, that a bias will form. This is
not an attack on any one of those people, nor is it  an attack on jc. It is
based on our experience in the corporate world, and our personal experiences
with "ugly corporate entities" (I work for a major US ISP that is with out a
doubt one of the ugliest) Regardless of the noble intentions that form any
of these entities, they always seem to go bad in the end.

Your personal attack on Steve  and Barry, and the choice of the word
"ignorance", only show that YOU have no idea of whom you speak. The term
vocal serf is rather unique, but let me clear that up...THEY ARE THE
EMPLOYER. (and quite lordly when they wish to be) "I" am an
employee/consultant/partner/serf/friend to these men, and their
organization, that has READ all of this bs thread, I have resisted posting
for the same reason that others have and that you claim to have.

Our greatest wish is that the Jabber Foundation, can prosper and help guide
"Jabber" to be the Standard in personal communications and beyond. It is (or
was) our intention to help in this endeavor. But we came up on a couple of
points that needed to be addressed and we are just blown off, like we
haven't the smallest idea of what we speak. Waiting for these issues to
become "ISSUES" and then address them in 6 months or so will be to late.
Everyone is in such a rush to get  past the pain of birth and get back to
the fun stuff, that they are signing  the death warrant of a new-born. Get
the Little Stuff done now. NOT in six month. then the fun can go on.
Picture this thread six months from now....when it is TO LATE to make minor
adjustments. The venom at that point could tear down alliances that have
formed and were making progress.

"WE" have seen it happen, and don't wish it to happen here, as it would
effect us too, however, the word we get here is SHUT UP, DON'T ROCK THE

These are just of course my observations and my opinions. You don't have to
like them, and most of the time, I'm just prick enough, that I hope you


Terry Smelser
Systems Specialist
Making IM the way it should be

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Miller" <MatthewM at vdr.com>
To: <members at jabber.org>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 9:45 AM
Subject: RE: [Foundation] Re: jabber.com for president

> 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),
> of them strike me as being mouth-pieces of their employers.

> Stephen and Barry, if you believe so strongly that individuals cannot act
> their own merit, then don't belong to this foundation, and don't
> 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.
> just happened to spring up, believe in their dreams, and decided to pay
> 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
> 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
> feel
> 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
> thread
> would be ignored and let die first, which I felt it should. And the reason
> that
> 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
> individuals
> contributing to the Jabber project while being lucky enough to have a
> business
> pay for it. Your message falls into the same category of personal attack
> 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
> 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
> 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
> >before it went this far.
> I count only you and Stephen Lee so far in opposition. Myself and more
> members
> who are not Jabber.com employees have already posted in support of
> Jabber.com
> and the elected members of the Jabber Foundation Council. I do not this as
> "situation".
> >Barr
> --
> John Hebert
> System Engineer
> http://www.vedalabs.com
> Changing your state of mind through sound.
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members

More information about the Members mailing list