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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Nov 15 13:25:28 CST 2006

Snipping the ensuing thread....

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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.

So we seem to have rough consensus on changing the name of the
organization to "XMPP Standards Foundation". As we discussed in
yesterday's Board meeting, I will write up a formal proposal (i.e.,
something the membership can officially vote on).

I think the proposal needs to address the following issues:

1. The name change itself.

2. Changes to the bylaws <http://www.jabber.org/jsf/bylaws.shtml>. For
example it probably doesn't make sense to talk about "Jabber Interest
Groups" anymore.

Everything else (e.g., location of certain website content, perhaps
moving and renaming some mailing lists) falls under implementation
details, as far as I can see.

I'll work up a formal proposal soon (probably next week).

> 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).

IMHO we need to start working on a refactoring of www.jabber.org and
probably a redesign of www.xmpp.org (which was put together in a hurry
with no design). This may involve a new logo as well. We talked about
this a bit in yesterday's Board meeting. The Board (of which I am not a
member) seems to favor hiring an outside agency to work on a real
design. I'm not opposed to that, I just want to make sure that we have
transparency and consistency. Plus we're just a standards group so I
don't think we need anything very fancy. Can't upstage the IETF and W3C
too badly. :-)

> 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.

I think we have consensus on "XMPP Standards Foundation".

That's it for now, feedback is welcome as always.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20061115/e70fe014/smime.bin

More information about the Members mailing list