[Foundation] Clarifications On Name Change Proposal
matt at jivesoftware.com
Mon Jun 30 23:52:21 CDT 2003
>>I would argue that the costs of *not* making a name change would be far
>>more exorbitant in terms of lost sponsors, lowered effectiveness as a
>>standards body, etc.
> It would certainly be interesting/more persuasive to make this argument
> less ephemeral and based on actual numbers/estimates.
Any number estimates I or others made would be instanstly dismissed as
purely speculative, so I'll refrain from making any. :)
I think the facts we've laid out in the letter make a persuasive case on
this point though. Sponsors will clearly be more inclined to join and
contribute to the JSF just based on all the feedback that we (the
current sponsors) are giving the JSF.
> Again it would be more persuasive if these numbers were based on actual
> line items rather than quick top of the head calculations.
> Your feeling that the name change would be sub-$1k range
> doesn't...jive...with my experience. It's hard to do much of anything for
> less than $1k. For instance, I don't know how much the JSF spent for
> attending OSCON, but I'd be quite surprised if it was $1k or less.
It simply won't be possible to come up with a final cost for a name
change until the team does its work over the course of many weeks
(although I think my estimate is still reasonable). If the team comes
back and says "implementing a name change will cost $50K", we'd
obviously have some problems. But, I really don't think that will be the
If you're really concerned about cost, perhaps you could lay out all the
costs that you forsee that would make it too expensive for us to change
the name of the JSF? Otherwise, I think the concern is unfounded.
> Perhaps your contingency could perform a thorough cost/benefit analysis
> to provide the information necessary to make such an important decision.
Step 1 of this process is to decide whether the name should change based
on the fundamental merits of doing so. In my opinion, cost does not play
a factor in this decision. In terms of benefit analysis -- I feel we've
already laid that out pretty completely in our letter. Were there any
points that you feel that needed to be elaborated on?
More information about the Members