[Members] s/JSF/XSF/g

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Mon Nov 13 22:53:21 CST 2006


Well, as pgm used to say, it's not a hill for me to die on. I tend
towards "foundation" too but "foundation" vs. "forum" is not a huge
issue for me. However, I very much don't want to be perceived as a
me-too organization in competition somehow with the SIP Forum, because
our focus is quite different, and that's enough to push me over the top
in favor of "foundation".

On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 10:46:31PM -0600, Matt Tucker wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> I think that "Forum" is a bit weak sounding. Given a choice, I'd be more
> inclined to accept standards from a "foundation" rather than a "forum".
> There's little chance we won't be perceived as open given our history.
> :) I'd also argue that "foundation" has a more non-profit/open source
> feel, which is more in tune with the character of the community than the
> more commercial-sounding "forum". That along with differentiation from
> SIP Forum makes me +1 on Foundation.
> 
> Regards,
> -Matt  
> 
> > I did find one "Forum" group that might be analogous to what 
> > we do, the Open Grid Forum: http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_overview.php
> > 
> > "XMPP Standards Forum" is indeed easier to say than "XMPP 
> > Standards Foundation" and that's not unimportant. Plus I like 
> > the fact that a forum is open (as OGF is), not closed like a 
> > consortium (think W3C, IEEE, and all the rest).
> > 
> > More examples of standards development organizations here:
> > 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standards_organization
> > 
> > Peter
> 



More information about the Members mailing list