[Foundation] Reset: Back to business

Iain Shigeoka iainshigeoka at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 12 12:02:42 CST 2002


Hello all,

Looks like I luckily went offline while all the dust went flying.  I
laughed, I cried, I kissed my girl and said, "everything is gonna be
alright".  My BA in psychology yearns to study the group dynamics further.
But I think most of us really just want to get things taken care of so we
can get back to whatever brought us to Jabber in the first place.

Despite all the discussion, we have made no headway on resolving the 2
issues put forth: membership criteria/responsibilities, and the trademark
issues.  Peter suggested some criteria and it received very little feedback.

I'd like to propose we take a first, procedural step to make something
happen.  I noticed during the IETF effort that deadlines really helped.  So
let's start by setting deadlines for things to happen.  Someone (or anyone
that wants to) create a strawman document for a solution to each problem.
If the deadline comes without resolution, we'll just use the strawman as the
final document (which can be revised in a later draft if it is unacceptable
to enough people). 

We can take Peter's proposal for membership as the membership strawman, and
one of us can throw something together for the trademark issue.  I've got
ideas on that one (but they probably won't be that popular) so I can throw
together the trademark strawman unless someone else wants to.  I also think
we need to put these strawman docs onto a web space to create a better
target for discussion and revision.  I propose setting up a JabberStudio
project or something similar.

-iain

#####################
Warning, controversial proposals follow.  They are intended to take an
extreme position so that they may be criticized, corrected, discussed, and
flamed.  They are "strawmen" so take out your pitchforks and start poking!
#####################

JSF Membership strawman document (v. 02/03/12)

I propose we dissolve JSF membership...dump the whole thing.  It's a
distraction, seems to be causing bad experiences, and hasn't done a damn
thing for us.  If members only responsibility is to vote, and we only vote
on who gets to be a member, then this is _really_ lame.

We retain the JSF council.  Anyone in the members at jabber.org mailing list
may vote on new JSF council members during the yearly re-election period.
We can put all the pressure on the JSF council to take care of
standardization "approval" and review.

JEP creation/standardization processes continue on standards-jig (it doesn't
require membership now to create a JEP).

Since the JSF council doesn't appear to have actually done anything in their
capacity, we may need to better define the council's role.  The council
carries out their discussions on the members list, and anyone subscribed to
the list may bitch and otherwise provide feedback to the council on how
they're doing.  

I'd like to also prose the ability of the membership (those subscribed to
the members list) to take a vote of no confidence in the council at any
time.  A 75% approval with a quorum of 50% of the current subscribers of the
members list will force an immediate re-election of council members to
complete the remaining term.  That way, if the council is just sitting on
their hands, we can kick them out, and get people who will do things in
office.

Deadline: Decide by April 15th, 2002

#####################

Trademark strawman document (v. 02/03/12)

We must resolve the trademark issue in a reasonable amount of time so that
both experimental and commercial Jabber projects may continue.  Whoever
should have been helping to expedite matters has not been able to within a
reasonable amount of time (cite.  A year?).  This proposal is not to place
blame but to create a tenable solution quickly and fairly. [Note: I'm trying
to put a little levity into this, not be legal-ish]

We, the Jabber community, hold these truths to be evident; that we cannot
rely on Jabber Inc. to resolve the issues regarding the Jabber related marks
in a reasonable amount of time and, that we must have a recognizable
trademark to use for our own projects: private, personal, public or
commercial.

We therefore must create a new, unattached mark for Jabber related products
and projects.  This mark shall be (insert voted mark and logo) and shall be
used to indicate a Jabber compliant application.

Jabber compliant applications fall into 3 categories.  First, they may be a
client participating in client-server Jabber interactions.  In which case,
the jabber compliant client must interact with the jabberd reference server
v. 1.0 or later without generating any errors.

Second, they may be a server participating in client-server Jabber
interactions. In which case, the Jabber compliant server must interact with
at least 3 Jabber compliant clients (see definition above) without
generating any errors.

Third, they may be a server participating in server-server Jabber
interactions.  In which case, the Jabber compliant server must ineract with
the jabberd reference server v. 1.0 or later without generating any errors.

The level of compliance is determined by the number of Jabber protocols
supported in this way.  So if you properly support <stream:stream> you are
level 1 compliant; if you support <stream:stream> and <message> you are
level 2 compliant, etc.

The availability of future Jabber compliance test suites will cause a
re-evaluation of compliance testing (perhaps requiring a new mark).

"Jabber" "JabberPowered" and the lightbulb logo may be considered for the
Jabber community marks only if Jabber Inc. can arrange for its legal use
under acceptable terms to the community by the deadline for this proposal.
Otherwise, our new mark shall be used for this purpose and the Jabber Inc.
trademarks can be reconsidered for this use at a future date (pending vote
by members).

Notice, this proposal is not intended to fragment the Jabber community or
reduce the importance of Jabber Inc.'s contributions.  However, we have
waited over a (cite, year?) with no progress on this issue.  The advancement
of the Jabber community and its members cannot be held up by trademark
related delays.  We hope that something can be worked out with Jabber Inc.
to continue to use the "Jabber" related marks either now or at some future
time. 

Deadline: April 22, 20002


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




More information about the Members mailing list