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

Alexander Gnauck gnauck at ag-software.de
Fri Nov 17 09:36:05 CST 2006


Hello,

i agree with Sean, Peter and Ralph, and Sean brought up some very 
interesting new viewpoints.
We are a standards foundation, but it's also our job to promote our 
protocols and attract new developers and companies. We have done very 
well in the past and to not stagnate in the future we need some dramatic 
changes. Everything on our roadmap for 2007 is affiliated with each 
other. We took the first step with renaming JEP=>XEP, the next logical 
step is renaming our foundation, but this doesn't solve our problems 
with the Jabber word. Currently commercial companies don't use and 
advertise with our Jabber Powered Logo because of the known problems, 
and this is also one of the reasons why many people don't know what is 
behind the services.

1.) We have to find a replacement for Jabber Powered
2.) It would be a big help for us if the this new brand gets adopted by 
individual developers, commercial companies and also the big players in 
the XMPP market.
3.) In combination with the interopt conferences and testing we can 
certify xmpp compliant software.

Regards,
Alex


Ralph Meijer wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 16:13 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>   
>> Sean Egan wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi, I'm Sean Egan, one of the new members. 
>>>       
>> Hi Sean, good to have you on board. :-)
>>
>>     
>>> Google Talk is part of some larger network
>>> (and I'm, personally, working on that), but it would really help if
>>> that larger network had a name.
>>>
>>> SMTP has "e-mail." HTTP has "the web." What should XMPP have?
>>>       
>
> First off, I don't believe the JSF is /just/ doing standards. We also
> bring people and companies that want to implement XMPP in contact with
> each other. We have people speaking and manning booths at conferences,
> using the JSF as our affiliation.
>
>   
>> I've always said that Jabber is to XMPP as the Web is to HTTP.
>>     
>
> I love 'Jabber' for that, too.
>
> The problem of course being the reluctance of commercial entities to use
> the Jabber *trademark* because of the name of Jabber, Inc. And I
> understand that. It might even hamper adoption. It is too bad that we
> are discussing to change the name of the organisation that is the nexus
> of our greater community to remedy this.
>
> Another solution would be to have Jabber Inc. change their name, but I
> don't see this happening.
>
>   



More information about the Members mailing list