[Foundation] Reset: Back to business

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Mar 12 12:44:07 CST 2002


Hi Iain,

Those are intriguing suggestions. A lot to ponder there, so I'm
pondering....

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
email+jabber: stpeter at jabber.org
weblog: http://www.saint-andre.com/blog/

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Iain Shigeoka wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> 




More information about the Members mailing list