[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?

Dave Smith dizzyd at jabber.org
Wed May 28 10:31:07 CDT 2003

Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 09:05 America/Denver, Matt Tucker wrote:

> Actually, I don't think this is true. If the JSF can agree to remove 
> Jabber from it's name and to not use Jabber in the name of official 
> protocol extensions for compliance purposes (such as "Jabber IM Basic 
> 1.0"), then that should free you from having to try to explain the 
> difference between an open protocol and your products to your 
> customers, the press, etc. You'd then be more free to use the Jabber 
> brand to promote your commercial products, which is your right. So, 
> the change really seems to benefit all of us, including Jabber Inc at 
> the end of the day.

Before you read this, please disable emotional reactions. I'm trying to 
explain my feelings in hope of continuing the conversation in a 
meaningful manner.

<emotion type="frustration">

For all of this discussion, I still don't see how renaming the 
Foundation and refraining from using the word "Jabber" in official 
documents will ease/remove the time we all have to spend explaining 
what Jabber is, what XMPP is, what JSF is, etc. It's a complex 
community, with many faucets -- changing the name doesn't change that. 
The fact of the matter is that people use the term "Jabber" as often as 
they use XMPP. Yes, I know there are press releases that talk only 
about XMPP, but "Jabber" is a term which crops up whenever I've ever 
heard anyone discuss XMPP.

Honestly, I have a lot of emotion wrapped up in this whole thread 
(obviously). I can't help but wonder where we were you guys in 1999 
when the Jabber project got started? Where you helping build the first, 
second, and third servers? Did you help shape the protocol, stay up 
late nights discussing the merits and disadvantages of using a 
document-per-packet? Where were you when the JSF was founded -- did you 
contribute to the structure or put thought into the organization to 
ensure that no one company had all the control (not even JINC)? What 
JEPs have you submitted that are in everyday use? What right do you 
have to come into this gathering and say "Let's throw out this "Jabber" 
name -- it's got too much baggage"?!

Open Source projects are meritocracies. From my standpoint, no merit 
has been earned by those who wish to change the name, and as such, I 
have difficulty viewing them as anything more than persons interested 
in doing a power grab. Participating in this community requires people 
to contribute something meaningful before they can start to have a say 
in the direction and future of our community.

People are passionate about Jabber -- and rightfully so, I believe. 
Changing the name of a community is a Big Deal, recommending that 
people prefer the term XMPP over Jabber is a Big Deal.

I want the community to continue to grow -- I always have. I want to 
see new companies participating and contributing extensions. I _want_ 
more competitors to JINC; bring it on! I (and quite a few others who 
_have_ earned merit in this project) are just not convinced that a name 
change will do that.


I do not say any of this lightly. I realize my discourse is loaded with 
flames -- however I just need to get that off my chest and summarize 
where I stand on the matter. I apologize if I have deeply offended 
anyone, but as a good friend said to me the other day, "Thick skin is a 
necessity in the online world".

Matt & Co: can we please just see the proposal you keep alluding to? 
And can we please just get down to voting on it? This thread is getting 


Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin)


More information about the Members mailing list