[Foundation] End Thread --> JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?
jfrankel at winfessor.com
Sat May 24 19:59:40 CDT 2003
I'm for XMPP in the name or Jabber, Inc. changing there name. The first
one seems much more likely.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Tucker [mailto:matt at jivesoftware.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 1:59 PM
> To: members at jabber.org
> > Well, then why don't "all" of these people come into the forum and
> > their support? As you posted earlier, members who have an opinion
> > speak up.
> So far, there seems to be a roughly equal number of people (at least
> have emailed on the mailing lists) that have spoken up for or against
> 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
> 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
> 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
> > 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
> body to the entire internet community, which would have a net positive
> effect on sponsorship.
> > To be clear about my statement regarding "necessary financial
> > - -- no, that wasn't a veiled threat of any kind. It was a reference
> > the fact that the JSF is a corporate entity that would have legal
> > expenses associated with researching a new name, updating paper
> > bank accounts, published materials (if any) etc.
> Thanks for the clarification. Personally, I don't think the change
> 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
> > support for the JSF is impossible (and improper) for me to say at
> > 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> > have to present some proof that it will help the Foundation as a
> > Any corporation thinking of renaming itself typically does a pretty
> > heavy duty analysis of the cost/benefit, since it's confusing to
> > 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
> 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.
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
More information about the Members