tmarkmann at googlemail.com
Tue Nov 14 01:52:45 CST 2006
Another really nice sounding name would be "XMPP Experts Group". There are
so many expert groups, so why don't we found another one.
On 11/14/06, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Members