[Foundation] Apache and Jabber

James Barry JMBarry at jabber.com
Wed Jan 9 17:50:33 CST 2002


Comments in line below:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Theo [mailto:adamtheo at theoretic.com]
I would support such a move if the Apache HTTP
> Server and the Jabber Protocol were equal projects of a combined,
> re-named Software Foundation.

The unfortunate part is that Apache is much bigger than Jabber and would
only accept Jabber as a sub-group.  And the reason I have a bit of
information on both Apache and Jabber is that I helped draft the Apache
Foundation while at IBM, many of the Apache Officers and Board members have
worked with me at various companies and I had a hand in drafting Jabber
Foundation.  

The purpose is to leverage their high traffic and to gain a bit of
"corporate blessing" for Jabber.  As an equal Apache would not deal with us.



> example: new members are accepted into the Jabber project 
> under this new
> SF. they are not automatically accepted into the Apache project, the
> Jakarta project, or any other project, just the Jabber 
> project, 

That's the way this part of apache works.

but they
> can vote on SF-meta issues because they are a member of one of it's
> projects. make sense?

Meta issues are handled by accepted Apache members
http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html and that list is relatively
small.  The reason for that is that these are the active code contributors
and there are a lot of them throughout the world.  The problem with allowing
each groups members vote on meta issues is that Apache has gotten too big,
with literally thousand involved in all of the sub-projects.  So to keep the
mayhem down, only a few can vote.

But that bigness is a strength.  A strength because it is almost a defacto
standards body with no official standards adoption, but the code is
considered the defacto standard.  In other words http, JSP, Servlets etc. do
not change the official standards ( IETF & Sun in these cases) without first
benign CODED into the respective project - Apache http or Tomcat.  That in
my opinion makes a good way to enforce the standards from going too much in
the way of a single commercial implementation.  For XMPP and etherx this
will help drive ubiquity and adoption at a rapid pace.  Though the adoption
of Jabber is respectable at this point, its not widespread enough to become
the driving standard yet.  

Jabber has a great chance to become the next big leap in Internet standards,
we just need to help it get there very logically.

I'll write up more later.  But I hope that provokes a bit more thought....  



> 
James Barry
jmbarry at jabber.com
303.308.3275
JID:jmbarry at jabber.com 



More information about the Members mailing list