[Foundation] Clarifications On Name Change Proposal

[Iain Shigeoka]

On Tuesday, Jul 1, 2003, at 11:18 US/Pacific, Matt Tucker wrote:

> Matt,
>
>> So let me get this straight: those that proposed this name change want
>> to have their cake (by making the "JSF" not use the term "Jabber" in
>> some places) and eat it too (by having the "JSF" use the term "Jabber"
>> in some places)?
>
> I think Iain's post may have been a bit confusing and I don't even 
> completely agree with it. :) However, I think what he meant to say is 
> that *outside of the JSF* there can certainly still be a role for the 
> Jabber name. So, the JSF wouldn't be using Jabber for any purpose, but 
> the larger community of XMPP protocol users would be free to use/not 
> use Jabber as they saw fit. Our proposal only deals with naming of the 
> protocol standards body, not the larger community of users.

Yeah. Thanks MT for the clarification. Sorry, I've been too deep in our 
first-round discussions about the name change. The usage of 'jabber' I 
was mentioning should be outside of the scope of the JSF.

I see the JSF as standards and advocacy of those standards and in that 
role, should avoid the term Jabber. However, the wider community should 
not feel that just because the JSF is avoiding the term that it would 
be off limits for other things outside of the JSF such as creating a 
mass market appeal portal similar to ICQ.com as was discussed on jdev at . 
Such an activity is not what the JSF does, but may be something the JSF 
could help bootstrap as part of it's advocacy efforts. Similar to how 
the JSF bootstrapped JabberStudio even though that is outside of the 
JSFs scope.

-iain