[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?

Matt Tucker matt at jivesoftware.com
Wed May 28 09:06:30 CDT 2003


> You use far too many personal
> opinions (which you seem to state as fact) without any real proof or
> evidence so if these are not present I doubt your proposal will succeed.

Urg. I believe I've used personal experience for some of my arguments 
(such as the confusion that I've personally encountered with customers), 
but I don't think I've relied on personal opinion. From your side, the 
only factually based argument I've seen is the Google one, which I 
attempted to make a reasonable reply to. In fact, I don't even know why 
you are opposed to a change besides "Jabber is a more popular term right 
now". Is that truly the only thing to consider? Can *you* back up your 
assertions with more than personal opinion? I think the facts are that:

  1) There is confusion over what Jabber is right now -- commercial 
product, open source project, open protocol, xmpp extensions? All sides 
in this debate have admitted this is true.
  2) We (commercial companies) will not use the Jabber brand 
commercially and especially not when the XMPP terminology exists. This 
has obvious reprucussions as explained in previous emails.
  3) Several non-commercial/Open Source people have expressed that they 
do not wish to use a commercially encumbered term.
  4) All evidence points to XMPP being the dominant terminology for the 
protocol going forward (even you are saying it is the name of the core 
  5) A significant chunk of the JSF membership and sponsors are quite 
unhappy with the current Jabber branding situation.

Do you really want a fractured community, because that's the path we're 
heading down now. On the other hand, we're making a proposal that seems 
to have the best chance of making everyone happy and that will be truly 
good for the JSF's protocol efforts.


More information about the Members mailing list