[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?
matt at jivesoftware.com
Thu May 22 13:11:38 CDT 2003
> Is it correct to say that the IETF will be in charge of the Jabber
> protocol/standards, i.e., XMPP? The Jabber Standards Foundation would then
> be playing second fiddle -- and, because of its name, not be charged with
> anything else.
It seems pretty likely that additional work on the IETF specs will be
done in the context of the JSF through working groups, although perhaps
I'm wrong. The JSF also does community extensions to the protocol
through JEP's and promotes the protocol to the outside world. It doesn't
really develop software, though. :)
> I like the current, vague JSF name. And I doubt that people often infer all
> of an organization's roles from its name.
Let's say you have never heard of the JSF. Given "Jabber Software
Foundation" or "Jabber Standards Foundation", which name, on face, would
give you a better picture of what the JSF actually tries to do? That is
a strong enough reason for the change in my opinion. I think a name like
"Open IM Foundation" gives an even clearer picture of the organization's
goals, but that's a whole different argument. :)
> Look at IBM -- they make business
> machines (internationally)... seems to have worked out pretty well for them.
I'm not sure this is a good example. IBM doesn't go by "International
Business Machines", they go by "IBM". The JSF uses its acronym fairly
often, but the full name is very important still as well.
> Getting too caught up in semantics is probably not the best use of the
> foundation's time, especially given the momentum behind the current acronym
> and its expanded meaning.
The whole game is changing now that XMPP is getting ready for IETF
prime-time. Now is our opportunity to make changes to the JSF that can
have a major impact on the success of the protocol. Making the
organization more understandable and effective to outsiders through a
name change doesn't seem trivial in that light.
More information about the Members