[Members] s/JSF/XSF/g

Chris Mullins chris.mullins at coversant.net
Mon Nov 13 14:51:02 CST 2006


I'm +1. 

--
Chris Mullins

-----Original Message-----
From: members-bounces at jabber.org [mailto:members-bounces at jabber.org] On
Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:46 AM
To: JSF members discussion list
Subject: Re: [Members] s/JSF/XSF/g

I'm surprised, too. Either my propoal is uncontroversial, or people are
tired of all the name change discussions and just want it to be over.
:-) I'm not into all this voting and political-type stuff, either, but
IMHO we need to get our house in order for future growth.

/psa

Matt Tucker wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> Hard to believe that nobody jumped in on this topic. :) I agree with
all
> of your points and actually like your name proposal of XMPP Standards
> Foundation quite a bit. It accurately reflects what we do, and XSF is
a
> good acronym. I think this is a very important step for the community
> and will lead to a lot positive growth for the protocol.
> 
> Regards,
> Matt
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: members-bounces at jabber.org 
>> [mailto:members-bounces at jabber.org] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
>> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 4:08 PM
>> To: members at jabber.org
>> Subject: [Members] s/JSF/XSF/g
>>
>> In September we modified the branding of our protocol 
>> specifications to more clearly describe them as XMPP 
>> extensions (which IMHO is what they are). Now I think it is 
>> worth thinking about perhaps taking the next
>> step: changing the branding of our organization.
>>
>> As we discussed (flamed about!) 2.5 years ago, the Jabber 
>> Software Foundation does not produce software, so the middle 
>> word in our title is simply false. Instead, we are a 
>> standards development organization, so the "S" really 
>> deserves to be "Standards". (It could be something like "T" 
>> for "Technology" but IMHO what we do is more limited than that.)
>>
>> So now we move on to the dreaded "J" word. I've been involved 
>> in this community longer than anyone else here. I've been 
>> involved since the days when Jabber was an open-source server 
>> (version 0.7!) and not all the other things it became later 
>> (a protocol, a company, etc.). I have a strong personal 
>> attachment to the word Jabber -- it's catchy, it's 
>> descriptive, it's personable, it's great. For me these 
>> technologies are still Jabber. My license plate still reads 
>> "JABBER". Et cetera.
>>
>> At the same time I recognize that what our organization does 
>> is standardize extensions to the Extensible Messaging and 
>> Presence Protocol. We are the XMPP Standards Foundation, 
>> whether we call ourselves that or not. And since that's what 
>> we do, it seems appropriate for our name to reflect our 
>> activities. And, naturally, changing the name of our 
>> standards development organization would put us further along 
>> the road of disambiguating what "JABBER" is -- see my 
>> previous post about JEP -> XEP:
>>
>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2006-August/003789.html
>>
>> I am not yet formally proposing that we change the name of 
>> our organization to XMPP Standards Foundation. I still need 
>> to perform further due diligence regarding the potential 
>> costs of such a change. So far I think that the hard costs 
>> will be rather minimal (business name change, updated bank 
>> account information, employer identification number update, 
>> etc.). I don't have as good a handle on the potential soft 
>> costs. The "JABBER" name is still widely recognized, much 
>> more so than XMPP. But I think that XMPP is what we do and 
>> that it's not particularly necessary for our standards 
>> development organization to have a catchy name.
>>
>> If we change the name of the organization, all of the 
>> organizational information would migrate to xmpp.org. We 
>> would still have jabber.org and I think we would make it more 
>> of a site for end users (that's something we need to do anyway).
>>
>> BTW, I prefer "XMPP Standards Foundation" to "XMPP Standards 
>> Forum" or "XMPP Technology Forum" for several reasons:
>>
>> 1. We create not generic technology but protocol standards.
>>
>> 2. We are a foundation that functions as an intellectual 
>> property conservancy (see 
>> <http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/ipr-policy.shtml>) and not 
>> merely as a discussion forum.
>>
>> Peter
>>


More information about the Members mailing list