[Foundation] End Thread --> JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?

Matt Tucker matt at jivesoftware.com
Sat May 24 16:59:17 CDT 2003


Dave,

> 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, there seems to be a roughly equal number of people (at least who 
have emailed on the mailing lists) that have spoken up for or against a 
name change. That points to the question being a controversial one, as 
we should all expect it to be. However, I think you had it right by 
pointing out that this email thread has served its purpose -- both sides 
have been able to start a discussion by presenting their major points. 
Now, those of us that believe "Jabber" should be dropped from the name 
of the JSF will take the next step by coming back to the membership with 
a more formal proposal.

> 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.

Ok, fair enough, although we do hope to make the case that dropping 
"Jabber" from our name will make the JSF a much more open and appealing 
body to the entire internet community, which would have a net positive 
effect on sponsorship.

> 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.

Thanks for the clarification. Personally, I don't think the change would 
be very major from a financial perspective. I can't speak for other 
sponsors, but we (Jive Software) would be happy to help pay for any of 
the minor costs that would be involved.

> 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.

First, I realize that you're not making any kind of official statement 
from JInc. However, it would be very sad if a name change of the JSF did 
affect their sponsorship, for a few reasons:

  1) JInc is the largest and most important commercial contributor to 
the JSF, and it would certainly hurt our cause greatly to lose their 
support.
  2) Those of us advocating a name change have tried to make it very 
clear that this is not an anti JInc campaign. Rather, we feel it's in 
the entire community's best interest (including Jabber Inc.'s) for our 
name and image to be less closely associated with a single commercial 
entity. Making a change will benefit everyone that cares about the protocol.
  3) It would be tacit acknowledgment of the fact that the JSF's value 
to JInc is directly tied to how similar the JSF's name and image is to 
their own. I hope and expect this last part simply isn't true.

> 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.

Yep, that's a real standard -- a full cost/benefit analysis with risks 
and rewards. The false standard is "show me hard proof that the JSF will 
grow by x amount within z timeframe". That's only one of the issues at 
stake as we've outline many times in previous emails.

Regards,
Matt




More information about the Members mailing list