[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?

Matt Tucker matt at jivesoftware.com
Thu May 22 18:32:08 CDT 2003


Matt,

I don't think we're in disagreement about the fundamentals at all. I 
totally agree with you that we should:

  1) Promote the protocol as a great IM standard.
  2) Promote the concept as it can apply to all sorts of very exciting 
problem domains.

However, I can't understand why you would be tied to the actual term 
"Jabber". As someone in an educational environment, I would think that 
you would much rather have a term that is un-encumbered by commercial 
interests.

I think that's really what this discussion is really about -- does the 
current name of our organization materially affect it's ability to 
achieve it's mission of widespread protocol adoption? I believe it does.

Regards,
Matt

Matt Mankins wrote:

> Howdy.
> 
> Quick summary: I'm still for: 
>                               1) JSF = Jabber Software Foundation, (think FSF)
>                               2) keeping jabber as a generic term not tied to IM
>                               3) thinking of JSF's job as advocacy
>                               4) promoting jabber for "open im" in the short run
> 
> 
> Some details:
> 
> 
>>I don't think this is true. The broader term is "Instant Messaging" not 
>>"Jabber". Nobody will ever say, "Hey Sally, I'll jabber you when I get 
>>home".
> 
> 
> 
> I'd agree with you if you want to pigeon hole jabber to be human based (or
> computer assisted) instant messaging.  (Granted, that's what it is today,
> and that's the proper route to mass, but there's a "dream" involved in
> jabber that's not present in pure instant messaging.)  What if 
> "jabber" meant the broader "connecting two thing's presence together and 
> letting them possibly talk"?
> 
> To expand further, there's four pieces to XMPP -- extensibility,
> messaging, presence, and protocol.  Each of these are huge additions to
> the "world's digital toolbox" and worthy of being capitalized.  To 
> swallow such a big pill, we call these things "jabber".  Together 
> they form a class of applications--jabber enabled applications--that give 
> presence and messaging capabilities to two (or more) endpoints on the 
> Internet.  These endpoints need not be humans--they just have to be on the 
> Internet.
> 
> XMPP makes it easy for application developers to put their hands into the 
> toolbox and come up with a way to make two things talk to each other 
> without doing a lot of worrying.  To be concrete, I'm in the middle of a 
> project that sees the idea of jabber touch things as different as
> whales, taxi cabs, and airplanes--that's not just instant messaging. 
> 
>  
> 
>>I think the discussion should be focused on the terminoloy that the JSF 
>>uses to promote the protocol, as expressed through the name of the 
>>organization.
> 
> 
> I would agree, focus is good. I think I spoke of whales some lines 
> back... :)
> 
> But seriously I see our interaction as really just disagreeing over
> "promote the protocol" vs "promote the concept".  I don't really give a
> wit about the protocol (well, that's not true, it's great), but am
> enamored with the concept.  
> 
> Because of this philosophical difference, I advocate "Jabber Software
> Foundation" rather than "Jabber Standards Foundation".  "Software" is
> general and open ended, suggestive of an organization that fertilizes its
> IP garden rather than "Standards" which connotes one that's constantly
> plucking weeds from it.
> 
> If there exists a current confusion about what the JSF's role is, this is 
> opportunity for us to educate and evangelize to the confused.  I 
> understand that this is made easier if the general thing the JSF promoted 
> was "Standards", but the righteous general promotion should really be 
> "Jabber".
> 
> 
> Matt Mankins
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members




More information about the Members mailing list