[Foundation] Reset: Back to business

Dave dave at dave.tj
Tue Mar 12 20:48:22 CST 2002


Peter,

You've got about 18K years to ponder the second strawman, so don't worry
too much ;-)

 - Dave

BTW - Iain: I kinda like the first suggestion (may be neat, or may be
catastrophic - definitely not boring, though), and I believe some of the
archives will show my opinion about your second suggestion: XMPP was
suggested, and I believe it's the best option for us, because it says
exactly what "Jabber" is, and wouldn't be easy for anybody to trademark.
If we're looking at our IM system as the equivalent of email for the IM
world, we need a truly open name (unless we want to have to refer to our
protocol as RFC xxxx/yyyy/zzzz (since it's likely to get broken up into
several RFCs, anyway).  As for conformance issues, the easiest thing to
do is make sure the RFCs are 100% unambiguous and cover all the bases
so anything that conforms to the RFCs is XMPP- (or whatever we end up
calling our protocol suite) compliant.  As soon as our historical RFC
is accepted, we'll have something reasonably official to point to, and
if we can convince the IMPP group to give up on waiting for the big guys
to agree on something, we'll have something _very_ official to point to.
We can certainly move forward on this issue even without arguing with
Jabber, Inc. (although that would certainly be somewhat of a backstab,
in view of everything Jabber, Inc. has done for us), but I think your
approach may be wiser.


Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
> 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
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> 




More information about the Members mailing list