[Foundation] Clarifications On Name Change Proposal

[Matt Tucker]

Matt,

> I mean, I'd be fine calling the standards body JEP (or something), and
> saying that the JEP helps guide the protocol, etc etc.  But I thought the 
> name change was because of a confusion in the marketplace over the concept 
> of "jabber", and who owns that.
> 
> So...would it be sufficient to simply divide the JSF into two
> organizational structures, one which promotes the "jabber" community (the
> jabber.net/org things listed above), and one which would not have "jabber"
> in its name and serve as the open protocol standards organization?

I think the JSF has traditionally played two roles (the ones you outline 
in fact):

  1) Development and extension of the core protocol.
  2) Promotion and support of the community in general.

Over time, I think the first role has grown in importance while the 
second role has waned. I think many people would agree that now the JSF 
should be entirely focused on protocol creation/extension and advocacy. 
What the marketplace needs is open, non-encumbered terminology for the 
protocol. That's handled by a new name for the JSF.

There are already some great community sites such as JabberCentral that 
may perhaps continue to grow in importance. There was also a lot of talk 
recently about resurrecting jabbercentral. I think that having a 
seperation between the protocol org and the general community 
organizations is a good thing for everyone.

Regards,
Matt