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

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


Evan,

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.

Regards,
Matt

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