[Foundation] End Thread --> JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?
dizzyd at jabber.org
Sat May 24 16:07:16 CDT 2003
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Against my better judgment...
On Saturday, May 24, 2003, at 10:13 America/Denver, Matt Tucker wrote:
> I personally know that the the group is much much larger than that
> since I've been having email conversation with a fair number of people
> about it. This is not a new idea either -- many of us have been
> talking about it for quite some time.
Well, then why don't "all" of these people come into the forum and show
their support? As you posted earlier, members who have an opinion
should speak up.
> So far, two of the JSF sponsoring companies have publically advocated
> for a name change and only one has advocated against. However, I don't
> understand "necessary financial resources"? Why would changing the
> name of the JSF incur additional costs? Is this a veiled threat that
> JInc would lessen it's support for the JSF after a name change? Please
> be clear, as we all obviously want to understand all the ramifications
> to any decision.
First off, this isn't about how many sponsoring companies in the
Foundation think this is a good or bad idea. From my standpoint this is
more about the members and the Board of the Foundation, and their
decision to change what the Foundation is. Now, if said members and
board _did_ change the Foundation, it is conceivable that the
Foundation could lose (or gain) sponsors. So there is a relationship
between the actions of the members/board and the number of sponsors,
but I think that it is incorrect to suggest that the number of
sponsoring companies for or against this action has any determination
on the outcome.
To be clear about my statement regarding "necessary financial resource"
- -- no, that wasn't a veiled threat of any kind. It was a reference to
the fact that the JSF is a corporate entity that would have legal
expenses associated with researching a new name, updating paper work,
bank accounts, published materials (if any) etc. Changing the name of a
company (even non-profit) is typically viewed as a reorganization and
is a relatively drastic legal modification.
Most participate in the JSF on a purely volunteer basis, but there is
legal side to the JSF which must be maintained to ensure the validity
and integrity of the Foundation. That legal side takes money to
I can't say what the reaction of JINC would be, I'm NOT the
spokesperson for the company. I would suspect that given the amount of
money that JINC has poured in the JSF over the past three years, it is
unlikely they would support a name change. What that means in terms of
continued support for the JSF is impossible (and improper) for me to
say at this time.
> Besides the technical work that is happening, I don't think there is
> any more important issue. However, I do agree that it's time to take
> the discussion to the next level. Those of us that believe a name
> change is necessary will create a specific proposal and come back to
> the membership with it for further discussion.
Well, that should be interesting.
> Obviously, "hard proof" will be a hard to come up with, although I and
> others firmly believe it to be true. However, I think that this is
> also a false standard for evaluating the name change. More on this in
> our official proposal.
Regardless if you believe it to be a "false standard", you're going to
have to present some proof that it will help the Foundation as a whole.
Any corporation thinking of renaming itself typically does a pretty
heavy duty analysis of the cost/benefit, since it's confusing to those
people/organizations that the corporation is serving.
Simply dismissing the requirement for proof as invalid doesn't cut it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Members