[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?
richard at dobson-i.net
Tue May 27 18:44:28 CDT 2003
> > On having Jabber in our name. I followed the whole discussion but am far
> > convinced we should remove that from our name. Jabber (as a noun)
> > represents what Jabber (the platform) is about. XMPP is yet another
> > good for the IETF, etc, but nothing to make T-shirts about. I have been
> > around for a long time, and love Jabber, the lightbulb and the
> Most of us that are JSF members have a certain fondness for the Jabber
> name and image. After all, they've been around ever since Jabber was an
> Open Source project (long before there were any commercial Jabber
> efforts). However, there's a different perception from the outside
> world, which is that the Jabber name and image belong primarily to a
> single commercial entity, Jabber Inc. It's a bummer for the community
> that this has happened, but it's a reality. I think we all care a lot
> more about the open standard than the name. If we truly care about
> seeing the open standard succeed then we need to drop the name and logo
> of a single commercial company.
I dont believe this, we have been pretty successful so far with our Jabber
name, you do not state any real ways in which we will benefit, only that we
will, to make people believe this you need to state believable reasons that
it will be of significant benefit, so far you havent come close IMO.
> > The argument that having to promote the name Jabber hurts your business
> > it endorses Jabber, Inc. is an odd one. I will probably step on toes
> > if you cannot explain the difference between Jabber, Inc., the JSF, a
> > suite called 'Jabber IM Basic', your company and its products... Well I
> > than maybe you should have tried harder. Today I told a relatively
> > (a co-worker in a major research lab) about the whole discussion. He
> > see the problem either.
> With all due respect to you and your co-worker, I think that you'd get a
> very different answer from any business person. In fact, my company has
> already had a bad experience with the Jabber name even though our XMPP
> product has only been on the market for a very short time and in many
> ways doesn't directly compete with Jabber Inc's products.
> Why should we have to "try harder" to explain the difference between
> Jabber the company and Jabber the protocol? Why should non-commercial
> users have to live under the umbrella of a single commercial entity?
> This just doesn't make sense and isn't what an open standards body
> should be about.
I havent heard any non-commercial people complaining about the situation, it
has only commercial people as far as I have seen so far.
> > If you make a product and can't explain why it is good and in what kind
> > marketplace it is, you don't have your act together. If you make good
> > people will want it. If you make enough of it, Jabber, Inc. might even
> > less relevant and become just another company making Jabber products.
> I think you're missing the point. Commercial companies and many
> non-commercial projects will simply ignore the proprietary Jabber
> terminology and just use the term XMPP. That's fine in general, and it
> *is* what's going to happen. But, without a name change, that leaves the
> JSF out in the cold -- companies and orgs will be much less likely to
> join us and may ignore our protocol extensions as long as they are
> branded with a competitor's name.
So you assert, I personally dont believe that is true, just because you
believe that it doesnt necessarily make it so.
> > One interesting thing about the whole comparison to HTTP and the web.
> > (by that name) will hopefully become as obiquitous as the web
> No, this is quite simply impossible. XMPP has already won as the
> dominant terminology that will be used by the marketplace -- check out
> all recent press activity if you don't agree with me. It's time to
> adjust to this reality.
The press != the world and user base, there are plenty of people that
promote the name Jabber as the name of the service itself, infact most of
the public servers do, as do a majority of the available clients (which is
what the end user sees).
Anyway all of this argument is moot, you just continue to state the same
points over and over (doing so does not make more people agree with you,
infact from my perspective it is wearing away any simpathy I had for your
situation, if you are going to continue to argue you must come up with more
compelling reasons, so far as Ralph has stated along with others your
reasons are simply not enough to convice us of your points, plus I dont
actually believe your view of the confusion situation accurately reflects
the public at large, just the small section you are targetting as your
I thought you and the others who do not want Jabber in the JSF name were
going to submit a proposal instead of wasting even more of everyones time
More information about the Members