incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Roughley <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Accept Wave for incubation
Date Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:35:12 GMT
On 11/29/2010 06:08 PM, Santiago Gala wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Ian Roughley <> wrote:
>> I'd like to add to what Soren said: we've discussed whether we should include the
protocol and the
>> implementation of the protocol in the proposal.  What we concluded, is that having
>> together would be the simplest for the time being... although I don't think anyone
in the discussion
>> had *really* strong opinions in either direction.
>> From my standpoint (as a Novell employee and part of the Novell Vibe project), I'm
very interested
>> in ensuring that the protocol and libraries are licensed in a way that they can be
leveraged by
>> commercial software to allow for interoperability.  I'd also go as far as saying
that it's in
>> everyones best interest for this to be the case :-)
> A big +1. I think that a very detailed roadmap would be more
> suspicious at this stage than having this open mind. There are two
> long term issues around: who owns central names, such as Wave, and who
> controls long term protocol evolution.
> I just thought that this fact should be brought up before the vote.
> IMO the situation is allright for accepting the incubation. The issues
> will be sorted out at due time.

I'm glad it was brought up in this forum.  It had been discussed, just before the Apache proposal
was submitted.  We should move those discussions here for continuity.

> Regards
> Santiago
>> /Ian
>> On 11/29/2010 07:15 AM, Soren Lassen wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Santiago Gala <>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Dan Peterson <>
>>>> (...)
>>>>> To keep things moving, I'd like to go ahead and put this proposal to
a vote
>>>>> starting on Tuesday on the west coast of the US (roughly 24 hours from
>>>> I want to get some information about an issue that, like the
>>>> name/branding one, is not a blocker for incubator entry, but can
>>>> change significantly the level of third party support.
>>>> It is the governance model for the protocol suit. If I understood
>>>> correctly, the project is scoped towards the software server
>>>> component. It does not include development of the protocol libraries.
>>> The project will include all the source code for the "wave in a box"
>>> server, including all the ("library"?) code for the data model, the
>>> federation protocol implementation, the client-server protocol
>>> implementation, and the robot and data APIs, as well as all the
>>> documentation/specifications for the data model, protocols, and APIs
>>> hosted at
>>>> Does it include test suites beyond the server being a big test harness
>>>> itself?
>>> There are no test suites other than unittests for the abovementioned
>>> implementations.
>>>> It would be great to be able to know the plans for those:
>>>> - protocol specification and maintenance
>>>> - reference libraries for the protocol
>>>> - test suites and specifically test kits if any is planned
>>>> I think that clarifying those scopes would be great.
>>> Presently, we regard the protocol specification as a specification of
>>> the wave-in-a-box implementation and, thus, the specification belongs
>>> together with the implementation in the proposed Apache project.
>>> Eventually, we would like to formally standardize the protocol, i.e.,
>>> agree with external parties outside the project to use the protocol
>>> between different implementations. When we get to the point when we
>>> start negotiating such agreements, we envision that we will spin out
>>> the protocol from the proposed Apache project into a standardisation
>>> working group (probably under the wings of IETF or some other
>>> standards body) which will govern these negotiations. The working
>>> group will need to decide on things like reference libraries and test
>>> suites. We're not deciding now whether the code in the proposed Apache
>>> project will be used for these purposes.
>>> Soren
>>>> Regards
>>>> Santiago
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> -Dan
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message