[Foundation] Clarifications On Name Change Proposal

[Dave Smith]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Tuesday, Jul 1, 2003, at 13:42 America/Denver, Matt Tucker wrote:

> Evan,
>
> Sorry that I haven't expressed my viewpoint on the cost issue better. 
> Basically, I believe that the costs of a name change are low enough 
> that they don't warrant important consideration versus all the 
> advantages that we laid out in the letter. I think all of us making 
> the proposal share that belief, which is why there isn't much of a 
> discussion about costs in the letter.

The counterpoint here is that it is your _opinion_ that the cost is a 
non-factor. Speaking as someone who has been involved with research of 
names for "things" in the past, I disagree with your opinion. 
Furthermore, the empirical evidence has been presented that it cost 
JINC significantly more (on the order of tens of thousands) to 
"acquire" and research the Jabber name than $1000. Therefore, it is a 
reasonable request for some clarity around the costs that will be 
involved with changing the name.

Note that I'm not asking for cost/benefit analysis -- that's much 
harder to quantify (although equally welcome). I just want to know how 
much cold, hard cash we're going to have to outlay in order to perform 
the deed of a name change.

After all, why should we vote on something which has unforeseen costs? 
It's a bit like not looking before you leap.

Thanks.

D.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQE/AefAYNE3chVHHsMRAnOtAJ9GRcfcLu2G0TvfR0mHXx2ditIBIgCfc9bT
mq3pfE27Yk2Fho5M0uGDm0Q=
=x/oO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----