AW: [Members] s/JSF/XSF/g

Alexander Gnauck gnauck at ag-software.de
Mon Nov 13 14:57:38 CST 2006


+1 from me too.

XMPP Standards Foundations sounds good to me. 

Best Regards
Alex

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: members-bounces at jabber.org 
> [mailto:members-bounces at jabber.org] Im Auftrag von Chris Mullins
> Gesendet: Montag, 13. November 2006 21:51
> An: JSF members discussion list
> Betreff: RE: [Members] s/JSF/XSF/g
> 
> 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