[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?

Iain Shigeoka iain at jivesoftware.com
Fri May 23 10:09:09 CDT 2003

On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 06:33 US/Pacific, Peter G. Millard wrote:

> Richard Dobson wrote:
>>> Honestly, I would take all of these arguments for getting rid of the
>>> word "Jabber" a lot more seriously if they weren't only coming from
>>> solely commercial sources. These arguments that "the community will
>>> grow if we call ourselves the [insert your word here] Software
>>> Foundation" fall short of inspiration. I agree that naming is
>>> important - -- but getting rid of the name of the COMMUNITY that
>>> built this phenomenon seems unwise. Any person who has ever tried to
>>> build a community will tell you that changing from an established,
>>> known name
>>> to something else _will_ hurt community recognition (and likely
>>> growth/adoption).
>> This is exactly what I have been trying to say but they will not
>> listen, removing Jabber from the name of the community may help
>> certain companies promote their products over Jabber Inc's but it
>> will seriously damage the community and regognition of what we are to
>> the outside world IMO. Jabber is here lots of people know about it if
>> we get rid of that name ive got a feeling people might think the
>> project has gone belly up and failed.
> +1... Look at the google results alone... they should be enough of an
> indicator (at least IMO) to people where the "brand" is...
> Simply put.. With the exception of the IETF, everyone knows this 
> community,
> _AND_ the protocol as Jabber, not XMPP.

I think the camp that's arguing for change would disagree. :) Jabber is 
well known by people that already know Jabber as Jabber. But the new 
people we want to expand awareness to, are the more mainstream IT 
people; those that read InfoWorld for example. And if you've read the 
InfoWorld articles that talk of IM protocols, you'll see that XMPP is 
the term they use. And the 'big story' is XMPP vs SIMPLE.

> There have been other posts which talk about a "level playing field" 
> in the
> commercial space, and thats just plain bull IMO. Commercial spaces are
> inherently (by definition) competitive. And sure Jabber, Inc. has an
> advantage right now because it's been one of the primary players in the
> space for a long time (so has Tipic). Does that mean they should get
> "punished" for being one of the first commercial jabber companies? That
> doesn't seem very fair to me.

I agree. But I don't think you can have it both ways. Either Jabber Inc 
should change their name so the protocol is freely called Jabber and 
there's no confusion (which I think is completely unfair to JINC), or 
the protocol's name must be changed to something neutral. I mean how 
comfortable would JINC feel being "Jive Basic 1.0 Compliant", or 
telling customers you support the Tipic extension protocol, or that you 
"produce the best Winfessor client" as so called 'neutral standards 
terminology'? :)


More information about the Members mailing list