[Foundation] I wish there was no Foundation

Iain Shigeoka iainshigeoka at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 29 13:13:53 CDT 2001


At 03:48 PM 6/29/2001 -0400, you wrote:

> > just at the time when Jabber must be the most fluid and quick to.
>
>     What *IS* jabber?  In this sentence, it's treating jabber as 'an
>entity'.  Without a group of individuals working together personally AND
>professionally what *IS* jabber?  The foundation is the legal *AND*
>theoretical difinition of 'Jabber'.  Otherwise there is no Jabber.

The foundation _wishes_ to become "Jabber".  However, jabber is really, as 
you say, the group of people and their agreement to work around a common 
vision and set of standards (the jabber protocols).  I have no problem with 
the Foundation helping to make this concrete ("hey, what is jabber?" "that 
is" *point to Foundation*).  I'm not sure if the Foundation is Jabber 
yet... they still need to establish themselves in that role.

>It seems
>that one of the counters 'AGAINST' the foundation is *ACTUALLY* a statement
>*FOR* it..

I'm not sure where the rest of your argument is going.

> > For example, what if we decide that some critical advancement requires
> > completely restructuring major parts of the Jabber protocol?  These
>changes
> > are necessary for moving forward.  With the Foundation, it must go to a
> > JEP, get a JIG, get discussed, have a reference implementation built, get
> > voted on, etc etc.  These delays can add up if several changes must occur
> > at once but the Foundation process requires them to occur in series (for
> > proper discussion and exploration of consequences).
>
>     Again, that 'We' statement.  Tell me, where does it go *WITHOUT* the
>foundation.  It gets tossed around, modified by every little special
>internest, and in the end, more then likely will suffer code rot in the
>depth of the eBasement on some web page..  As an example, , 4 little, ugly
>letters..  'MIME'..  :-)

Well with a Jabber dictator, that individual says, yea or nay and that is 
that.  Anything outside of that is something else.  The community may or 
may not like it, but the definition of "Jabber" would be pretty 
clear.  ;)  Not saying that I'm necessarily for such an approach, just 
saying that is an alternative that doesn't seem to have been considered much.

> > quickly can I get this through (if ever)?  What if one member of the
> > council that loves the idea of the resource in the JID sits on a -1 for a
> > few weeks while trying to turn around public opinion (e.g. politics)?
>
>     Then you're in *REAL LIFE* and not a fantasy land.  Here in real life,
>individuals are NOT always right..  8-)

:)  Yes.  My only worry is that the Foundation may not even give us the 
chance to make that mistake.  I'm a subscriber to the theory that there is 
a finite "window of opportunity" for new technologies and standards to 
establish themselves or wither and die.  I'm not saying the Foundation is 
bad or that this will happen.  Just that I worry a bit.  ;)

-iain


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




More information about the Members mailing list