[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?
matt at jivesoftware.com
Thu May 22 21:55:01 CDT 2003
>> Now, which term do you think has a better chance at being adopted by
>> the larger internet community and by other commercial companies? This
>> is really the thinking that we need to apply to the JSF since 99.9% of
>> the world hasn't heard of XMPP/Jabber (the protocol) and we hope to
>> introduce it to them.
> Sorry but your company not being comfortable with using the term
> "Jabber" and because of that you want us to remove it from our name
> seems selfish and counterproductive to me.
Is there selfish motivation in arguing for a name change? Yes, although
I think it's selfish in a good way. Counterprodutive? No -- I think it's
the opposite since it will broaden the appeal of the JSF to a much
larger set of companies.
> Most people know the technology as "Jabber" not XMPP the relatively new
> term to arrive,
I simply don't believe this is true, and perhaps it's because I am newer
to the community than many others. Ever since IM has gotten "hot", the
press has used the term XMPP. I also pointed out some links in a
previous email detailing the strange perceptions people have about
Jabber as the company vs the open protocol. Finally, I think it's simply
a fact that all companies outside of JInc will be using the term XMPP
and not Jabber once there is an IETF standard. We need to adjust to this
reality. "Jabber Basic IM 1.0" compliance has much less chance of being
advertised on companies' websites vs a term that doesn't refer to a
> plus there is the fact that Jabber != XMPP protocol
> wise, XMPP is the basic protocol and Jabber is XMPP + all the extras on
> top. Removing Jabber from our name will create much more confusion that
> what there might be now IMO.
XMPP is indeed the base protocol and there is obviously a lot more that
the JSF defines on top of it. I don't have the perfect answer for what
we might call that collection of extensions, but I'm just suggesting
that it not be called "Jabber". Let's come up with terminology that
makes it clear that this is the standard set of XMPP extensions defined
by the XMPP community. That will give them a MUCH better chance of
getting adopted by everyone that implements XMPP. However untrue it
might be, I think that the natural perception of the JSF without a name
change will be:
XMPP == open IETF standard
Jabber == proprietary extensions built on top of XMPP led by a company
called Jabber Inc.
Let's not let that happen.
> I think its fine to change the name to "Jabber Standards Foundation"
> since that will minimize the collateral confusion your suggestion
> creates (the acronym even stays the same), changing Software to
> Standards is perfectly adequate to more than clearly show our true focus.
> Do we really want to throw all the work we have done already promoting
> "Jabber" (in terms of the name of the higher level protocol) ???
I agree that Jabber Standards Foundation is better than Jabber Software
Foundation. However, I think that the community would never accpet two
name changes, which is why I'm proposing the more radical shift to get
rid of "Jabber" now.
It's a bit scary sounding to adopt a totally new name, but now is the
perfect oppurtunity. As XMPP becomes an IETF standard, the crucial
debates will be had over which IM standards everyone should use. With
the word "Jabber" in our name, I think the JSF's position in that debate
will be very weakened. Let's take the bigger risk of a more radical name
change, as I think the reward would be a truly fair, open community that
can attract a large internet audience.
More information about the Members