[Foundation] thoughts from another commercial player

Matt Tucker matt at jivesoftware.com
Fri Jul 11 12:50:12 CDT 2003


> Matt, most Americans speak English and Brazilians -- Portugese. And few
> outsiders have difficulty understanding the link between nationality and
> official language. At the same time, Brazilians have plenty of dialects. So,
> just think of Jabber as the preferred dialect extension of XMPP.

 From what I can find on the web, Brazillian Portuguese is a fair bit 
different from Portuguese spoken in other parts of the world. Inside 
Brazil, the Portuguese is apparently pretty similar with just different 
pronunciations of certain words (as in the US we have different accents 
in different regions of the contry). It's all just referred to as 
Portuguese, though.

In any case, our position is that in order for the JSF "dialect of XMPP" 
to succeed, it needs to use commercianlly un-encumbered naming. Further, 
it's just less confusing to use two totally different names for a single 
protocol. It should all be XMPP just as it is all Portuguese.

> the JSF is much more nimble, and (used to be) much less
> encumbered by petty politics.

You may consider the issue to be petty politics, but we that signed the 
letter really don't. Some of us represent companies and others that 
signed are individuals. In both cases, we only succeed if the protocol 
really takes off. We made the proposal because we believe that a name 
change of the JSF is very important to the protocol's success.

> But, from what I've seen,
> you're absolutely unwilling to budge from your original idea -- all the
> while expecting a majority of the JSF to support you.

To be clear, it's not "my idea". The open letter was signed by a large 
chunk of the JSF membership including two committee leads. I just happen 
to be the most vocal advocate of the proposal.

Also, it's pretty hard to "budge" since the proposal is a very narrow 
one -- we're not seeking to change what the JSF does or how it does it, 
just the naming it uses. There have been a number of "compromises" 
suggested by various people, but they're honestly a bit confusing.

  * Tony from JInc suggested that Jabber need not necessarily be used in 
branding the protocol extensions that the JSF creates while you 
(apparently from JInc) and others insist that Jabber is the correct name 
for the XMPP protocol extensions.
  * Some suggested creating a new organization wholly dedicated to 
protocol work with naming more centered around XMPP but others are very 
against that.

So, I'm not sure where we could budge to without getting shot down. :)

> Perhaps you could try
> to better understand where some of the opposition to your proposal is coming
> from.
> You're asking the community to change so your life is potentially made
> easier, but in a way that damages the community.

It's not about making our "lives easier", it's about making the protocol 
succeed in the marketplace and ensuring that the JSF has continued 
relevance. There is certainly a commercial interest in a name change by 
some of us that have signed the letter, but I don't think it's the 
commercial interest that you portray. I personally think all commercial 
interests are served best by the largest marketplace possible for the 
protocol and we think the proposal is very important for that. It's kind 
of like being a big fish in little puddle vs. a small fish in an ocean 
-- I'd choose the ocean.

Anyway, I think Evan had a great post on this topic. Conflict is good 
and not bad or "petty". Both sides have presented what they believe are 
strong cases so the membership should make a serious vote on it.


More information about the Members mailing list