[Foundation] Clarifications On Name Change Proposal
iain at shigeoka.com
Mon Jun 30 23:52:13 CDT 2003
On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 21:19 US/Pacific, Mankins wrote:
>>> Mankins suggested:
>>> Nonetheless, for the sake of forward motion, perhaps it's sufficient
>>> put upper and lower bounds on the cost and move on.
>> To Which Matt Tucker Responded:
>> I would argue that the costs of *not* making a name change would be
>> 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.
I agree. it's hard to quantify these numbers though. Hard cash, we
could say that if the signers of the proposal stopped sponsoring, the
JSF only loses a few thousand dollars a year. However, the marketing
and compliance team leaders are signers of the name change proposal. We
put resources into promoting the JSF and XMPP/Jabber to corporate
customers, at conferences, to colleagues. We put time and effort into
JSF activities. If these are counted as in-kind donations the numbers
Don't get me wrong, Jabber Inc is by far the largest donor of time and
money hands down. But if the JSF loses the smaller commercial
developers I think it loses a lot. I don't want to put stpeter on the
spot but I'd guess he would say that the group of people that signed
the name change proposal contribute 'significantly' to the JSF.
>> In any case, I think a reasonable estimate for name change expenses
>> be a few hundred dollars to $1K. I can't speak for
>> other sponsors, but Jive Software would be willing to pick up some of
>> these expenses.
> 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
> 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.
> Perhaps your contingency could perform a thorough cost/benefit analysis
> to provide the information necessary to make such an important
We have intentionally left this to the name change team. We don't think
it will be simple or quick (and so we've proposed they have several
months to accomplish these tasks). We feel that accurately gauging the
cost will take the mandate of the membership; it is too significant a
task to undertake without that mandate.
More information about the Members