[Foundation] Clarifications On Name Change Proposal

[Matt Tucker]

Hey all (sorry, snipping from two emails),

> I wonder aloud if taking step 1 out of the proposal would solve this
> problem. The Name Team could then propose other names for a vote in
> October, but the membership wouldn't be committed to dropping "Jabber"
> until we had more facts available.

The reality of the situation is that without the membership first 
agreeing that a name change is necessary, the process of choosing a new 
name would exremely divisive and non-productive.

The effect of step 1 of our proposal passing is that a team would be 
created with a specific mandate: find us a new name that doesn't use 
Jabber. I firmly believe that without this mandate the team will not 
have a chance at being effective. With this mandate, I think there's 
almost no chance that it won't be effective. Is it really "impossible" 
to pick a new name that doesn't involve exorbitant costs?

This question is not a matter "picking another name and then deciding 
which one is better". Rather, it's either agreeing or disagreeing with 
those that signed the proposal that it's simply untenable to continue to 
use the commercially encumbered Jabber terminology in a standards body.

 > ...and what about the whole question of Jabber, Inc. itself?  Unless
 > I misunderstood the porposal, won't we kinda be pulling the rug out
 > from under it???

We who have signed the proposal have tried to make it very clear that we 
regard Jabber Inc as the leader of this community and don't forsee a 
name change affecting that. It's simply an unfortunate circumstance that 
a company and the protocol are named the same thing. We can't ask that 
the company change their name (they have the right to it after all), but 
we can propose that the JSF change its name.

Regards,
Matt