Reply to 'No Replies Please' Post (was Re: [Foundation] Old Timer POV - No replies please)

Matt Tucker matt at
Sun Jul 13 23:20:21 CDT 2003


Thanks for being willing to consider the proposal objectively. I won't 
add any more points to the discussion. The only thing I wanted to 
clarify is that the proposal is not only signed by commercial folks. One 
signer has no commercial affiliation and I believe one other is Open 
Source only. I think there are plenty of people that have no economic 
interest in the outcome that still believe this proposal is the right 
move for the JSF.


Evan Prodromou wrote:
> So, I'm sure I'm headed for some kind of mailing list Hades for
> replying to a message that so vigorously requested 'No Replies', but I
> had a question I wanted to ask. Not necessarily of Ryan, but of the
> group at large.
> First, I'd like to point out that the Jabber community has
> _incredibly_ dedicated volunteers, proponents, and developers. I
> wouldn't ever want to get on the wrong side of this group. B-) I don't
> know how we can fail with this much effort and goodwill.
> OK, now, on to the questions:
> * Leaving aside brand recognition, which I recognize is a serious
>   cost, how important is the name 'Jabber' to Jabber? If you took all
>   the good parts of Jabber -- the design, the ethic, the community,
>   the history -- and called it by another name, would it still be
>   worth the emotional investment?
> * In October 2004 (one year after proposed name-change vote), when
>   we're all working on Parley or Splutter*, will you really care that
>   it's not called "Jabber" anymore?
> * Can we be sure that the people requesting a name change for Jabber
>   and the JSF are really just 'bad eggs' trying to ruin everything for
>   the rest of us? I don't know any of them personally, and I don't
>   have any experience off-list with any. But it doesn't seem to me
>   like any of them are acting in bad faith. There were an awful lot of
>   signatories to the proposal. I wonder if it might be worthwhile to
>   consider their point -- that commercial entities might have a hard
>   time participating in the JSF if it has the name of their competitor
>   in it -- at face falue.
> * If the name 'Jabber' inhibits some commercial entities from joining
>   in and helping out with Jabber, is it pretty much tough beans for
>   them? How important is it to have commercial entities -- both
>   current and future -- participate in the JSF and in the Jabber
>   community?
> * If the problem were big enough that some players or potential
>   players went over to The Dark Side (muahahaha -- cue thunderbolt),
>   rather than considering Jabber, would that be worrisome? Are we in a
>   sufficient position of strength that we can tell any possible
>   commercial partners to just go scratch themselves?
> * The proposal undercuts some of the brand recognition for Jabber,
>   Inc. Jabber, Inc. has been very friendly and positive towards this
>   community, and in a way this proposal would be a rebuff to them. Is
>   that unfair to them? What loyalty does the Jabber community owe
>   Jabber, Inc.?
> I have to be honest: I have great emotional attachment to the name
> 'Jabber' and I'm unconvinced by arguments that we _must_ change it or
> die like bugs. But at the same time, from an objective POV, I see a
> positive benefit to having commercial entities in the JSF, and
> increasing their presence. I'd miss the name 'Jabber', but I think if
> a new name that pleases everyone is found, well, that'd be boss.
> Anyways, that's my spiel (again). I can't seem to shut my big yap
> about this subject -- I guess it's just capturing my
> imagination. Still not sure how I'll vote on this.
> ~ESP

More information about the Members mailing list