incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Max pane <your...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Hello
Date Sun, 26 May 2013 00:15:27 GMT
Let me know any on needs Virtual private server for testings




On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Michael MacFadden <
michael.macfadden@gmail.com> wrote:

> Angus,
>
> I can take care of the notice.
>
> ~Michael
>
> On May 25, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Angus Turner <angusisfree@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As I said earlier, we're working towards moving all the documentation
> onto
> > the apache wave wiki, so it's all in one place, as it's currently
> scattered
> > over 3 or 4 sites. I suggest we put a notice up on the wave-protocol
> > mailing list that disucssion is taking place on this mailing list.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Angus Turner
> > angusisfree@gmail.com
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:00 AM, John Blossom <jblossom@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Michael,
> >>
> >> I read this one first, but respond to it secondly.
> >>
> >> I would encourage you to proceed with the migration. If Google support
> is
> >> deprecated, then we need to make that completely unambiguous for anyone
> >> trying to learn about our efforts. I am excited that there is the
> potential
> >> to move forward with the protocol via the Apache community, which I am
> sure
> >> will welcome additional contributors.
> >>
> >> All the best,
> >>
> >> John Blossom
> >>
> >> email: jblossom@gmail.com
> >> phone: 203.293.8511
> >> google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Michael MacFadden <
> >> michael.macfadden@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> John,
> >>>
> >>> You concerns are valid.  I worked directly with the Google team in
> moving
> >>> the project to Apache.  In fact, I worked with the Google engineers to
> >>> identify Apache as the target and I helped write the application to
> >> become
> >>> an incubator project.  What I can tell you is that there is no one at
> >>> google shepherding the Wave Protocol.  We had talked about moving the
> >> wave
> >>> protocol itself over to Apache or possible over to IETF, or IEEE.
> >>> Essentially, when Wave moved from Apache to Google, the only people
> >>> working on the protocol are those working on Apache Wave.  I still have
> >>> administrator access to waveprotocol.org as I was a contributor there
> as
> >>> well.
> >>>
> >>> My impression is that if there is a group of people that would work on
> >>> moving the protocol itself forward, that they would be suited to do
> that
> >>> in the Apache Wave community.  The idea was always that AFTER a stable
> >>> reference implementation was build and the protocol was shown to be
> >>> robust, we would move it to an RFC, W3C, or IEEE standard.  However,
> >>> working on them separately is just not a viable option with the current
> >>> maturity of the community.
> >>>
> >>> We have had an open task to move all of the documentation on wave
> >>> protocol.org over to Apache, we just haven't executed that yet.  My
> >>> personal opinion is that wave is currently a small community.  Trying
> to
> >>> manage TWO communities right now is not feasible.
> >>>
> >>> As far as the community, several people have been active with the code
> >> and
> >>> several people have been active in other ways.  As I mentioned I have
> >>> access to both communities as an admin, so I might be a good person to
> >>> help figure this out.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> ~Michael
> >>>
> >>> On 5/25/13 9:16 AM, "John Blossom" <jblossom@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Pratik,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you for your thoughtful comments. These are the sorts of
> delicate
> >>>> issues with which I and others have been wrestling.  I believe that
> your
> >>>> summary is quite good, and I am eager to receive additional points of
> >>>> view.
> >>>> Wave concepts are very valid even today, and can take on a new light
> in
> >> an
> >>>> era of mobile-first Web communications. To me the importance of
> >>>> establishing the protocol and the federation scheme is critical for
> the
> >>>> success of all Wave products - without it, Wave will be less than
> email,
> >>>> and therefore never come close to one of its original goals to make
> >> email
> >>>> redundant. More importantly, perhaps, social media platforms and other
> >>>> collaborative communications tools are increasingly proprietary in
> >> nature
> >>>> -
> >>>> or at least owned or dominated by large companies. There appears to
> be a
> >>>> market gap for vendor-independent collaborative communications that
> can
> >>>> scale across any number of up-to-date applications models.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am applying the Wave Principles to this discussion, and hope that
> >> others
> >>>> will also. There are other open discussions also, of course, that are
> >> more
> >>>> conceptual and collegial in their nature.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no keeper of Wave at Google - I think that it's very safe to
> >>>> offer
> >>>> that definitively. They have products that have used Wave concepts,
> such
> >>>> as
> >>>> Google Drive Realtime API, but the code itself appears to be
> completely
> >>>> deprecated and Wave is never mentioned by anyone at Google directly
in
> >>>> public and in private I doubt that it's done either. The lack of
> >> activity
> >>>> on the Google Group speaks for itself - Google is disinvested in Wave
> >>>> except to borrow concepts from it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your point about the Google code being referred to as canonical yet
> >>>> pointing to the Apache site for where it's moving underscores the
> >> delicate
> >>>> situation. One could conclude, right or wrong, that Wave is not
> >> supported
> >>>> well in part because it's not entirely definitive that people
> developing
> >>>> its code base via Apache can do what they would deem appropriate to
> >> create
> >>>> new iterations of canonical code. I would appreciate clarification on
> >> this
> >>>> point, and I imagine other would, also.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> All the best,
> >>>>
> >>>> John Blossom
> >>>>
> >>>> email: jblossom@gmail.com
> >>>> phone: 203.293.8511
> >>>> google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Pratik Paranjape <
> >>>> pratikparanjape@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I had studied this point a while back, and for all practical
> >> purposes, I
> >>>>> had to conclude that the development of wave-protocol is very tightly
> >>>>> tied
> >>>>> to the development of the Wave as application. Please consider
> >> following
> >>>>> points:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) Community Principles:
> >>>>> http://www.waveprotocol.org/wave-community-principles
> >>>>>    The guidelines are quite open and discussion is encouraged to
be
> >>>>> public, for all parties involved.
> >>>>> 2) The wave-protocol site: https://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/
> >>>>>    Community principles mention google-code site as canonical
> >> reference
> >>>>> for protocol, but the protocol site itself clearly states
> >>>>>    that the project is moving to Apache. No separate  wave-protocol
> >>>>> project mentioned.
> >>>>> 3) The wave-protocol Google group:
> >>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/wave-protocol
> >>>>>    The group has no activity since Jan 2011.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It makes sense that the protocol should evolve based on the feedback
> >> of
> >>>>> actual use in production environment, which as it stands right now,
> >> most
> >>>>> likely will be coming through the use of Apache Wave (in a box).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That said, there can be finer legal issues which are not matter
of
> >>>>> public
> >>>>> documentation. Is there a governing body at Google for wave-protocol?
> >>>>> Can
> >>>>> someone from Google comment on it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /** Start of Opinions from an interested party**/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On general note, since John initiated a discussion, laying out my
2
> >>>>> cents.
> >>>>> Even though Wave did not go the spectacular path it was originally
> >>>>> designed
> >>>>> for, I think both the protocol and the platform (CC-OT, Wave Model
> and
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> Client) have enough merits to make it into several fantastic products
> >>>>> with
> >>>>> certain aspects tweaked.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. Simplification of the client
> >>>>> 2. Clear use cases, differentiation on the basis of intended users,
> >> e.g.
> >>>>>    a) Technical and non-technical audience
> >>>>>    b) Features that are useful in Wiki vs features that are useful
in
> >>>>> general purpose communication platform parallel to email. (Do you
> want
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>        other party to read the email exactly as you are typing it?
)
> >>>>> 3. Better integration with existing email technologies/servers for
> >>>>> smoother
> >>>>> transition from email (through POP, IMAP)
> >>>>> 4. As John pointed out, some direction towards Mobile adoption
> >>>>> 5. ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am curious to know if anybody else here agrees with the summary
> >> above,
> >>>>> and with the opinion that the Wave needs redirection in order to
have
> >>>>> mainstream success. For a complex project as wave, everything depends
> >> on
> >>>>> the community momentum, and its a chicken-egg problem.
> >>>>> I understand that some may think its a too big a change to be talking
> >>>>> about, ( and that coming from a non-contributor). Aim is to just
> >> collect
> >>>>> ideas and to check if there are others who feel the same way. I
am
> >>>>> currently busy on a different start-up project, but have definite
> >> plans
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> play with Wave in its communication platform form, as I get the
> >> chance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think to this point, objective has been to get WAIB up and running
> >> at
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> level of production deployment. Kune.cc has been using wave in
> >>>>> production,
> >>>>> if they are willing, their feedback and adoption report can be of
> >> great
> >>>>> help. The current contributors have been doing a great job of getting
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> client-server running, taking over from somewhat not-ready source
the
> >>>>> project received.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /** End Opinions **/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Pratik Paranjape.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Theres also the need for a Wave client/server protocol standard
> >> (akin
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>> what POP3 or IMAP is for email), that seems to be in a limbo
for a
> >>>>> very
> >>>>>> long time.
> >>>>>> As someone very eager to work on native mobile clients, this
has
> >> been
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>> hold up. No one can make mobile clients at the moment without
also
> >>>>> running
> >>>>>> their own server.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Thomas Wrobel
> >>>>>> (Interested  3rd party..)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~~
> >>>>>> Thomas & Bertines online review show:
> >>>>>> http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html
> >>>>>> Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 25 May 2013 15:05, Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Others may clarify more, but it was my understanding that
the wave
> >>>>>>> protocol was not to come over to Apache - Apache only received
a
> >>>>> partial
> >>>>>>> implementation, Wave in a Box.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So you'd certainly be right that the protocol itself hasn't
moved
> >> at
> >>>>>>> Apache - that hasn't been the remit here. I believe they
have a
> >>>>> google
> >>>>>>> group for discussing the protocol itself, but not sure how
active
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>> list is.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Apache Wave project is focused around producing an
> >>>>> implementation
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>> the protocol.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> HTH! Upayavira
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sat, May 25, 2013, at 12:31 PM, John Blossom wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Christian,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the information. I was addressing Yuri directly
as a
> >>>>>> starting
> >>>>>>>> point, since I am unfamiliar with anyone else who has
been
> >> active
> >>>>> on
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> Wave incubator code. I do understand the general structure
of
> >>>>> Apache.
> >>>>>>>> What
> >>>>>>>> I am trying to understand more clearly is whether the
Apache
> >>>>>> organization
> >>>>>>>> as a whole governs the Wave incubator project or whether
there
> >> is
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>>> subset
> >>>>>>>> of contributors who govern it. Trademark issues are
certainly
> >>>>>> understood.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I am glad to contribute requirements specifications
and review,
> >>>>> though
> >>>>>> my
> >>>>>>>> coding days are pretty well past. My main concern is
that the
> >> Wave
> >>>>>>>> specification has not progressed under Apache and no
longer
> >>>>> reflects
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> goals that Wave should be able to undertake in a mobile-first
> >>>>> Web. I
> >>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>> like to encourage developers to step forward to work
towards
> >> that
> >>>>> goal.
> >>>>>>>> To
> >>>>>>>> that extend, the "third party" is simply other developers
and
> >>>>>> enthusiasts
> >>>>>>>> who need to communicate with Apache more actively to
help
> >>>>> determine
> >>>>> how
> >>>>>>>> best to move forward with Wave. I am taking that step
on a
> >>>>>> non-commercial
> >>>>>>>> basis, in the hopes that we can develop a code base
that will
> >>>>> result
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> robust, interconnected commercial and non-commercial
products
> >> and
> >>>>>>>> services.
> >>>>>>>> Presumed goodwill should be the order of the day for
everyone in
> >>>>> this
> >>>>>>>> process.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> All the best,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> John Blossom
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> email: jblossom@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>> phone: 203.293.8511
> >>>>>>>> google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:17 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> >>>>>>>> <grobmeier@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hello John,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:37 PM, John Blossom
> >>>>> <jblossom@gmail.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> I am a member of WaveWatchers, a group of enthusiasts
who
> >>>>> remain
> >>>>>>> devoted
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> the concept of Wave and its future. I am trying
to get a
> >> hand
> >>>>> as
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> coordination of Apache Wave today. Yuri Zelikov,
I know that
> >>>>> you
> >>>>>>> remain
> >>>>>>>>>> active in the coding of projects in the Incubator
community,
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> you've done a lot through the years to keep
Wave-in-a-Box on
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>> map.
> >>>>>>>>> But I
> >>>>>>>>>> am not sure of the structure of how your efforts
fit into
> >> the
> >>>>>> bigger
> >>>>>>>>>> picture.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> First off, the Apache Software Foundation is a group
of
> >>>>> volunteers
> >>>>>>>>> doing projects together.
> >>>>>>>>> At Apache Wave, there are more people to be considered
active
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> so
> >>>>>>>>> it would be wrong
> >>>>>>>>> to just only ask Yuri.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For more information on the ASF, please read:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Please also note that the Incubator is a kind of
meta project
> >>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>> hosting other projects
> >>>>>>>>> which want to come to the ASF.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That said it would be good if you could explain
what you mean
> >>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>> "bigger picture".
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'd be grateful for an update from any and all
concerned. I
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>> others
> >>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>> interested in re-architecting Wave for more
full-blown
> >>>>>>> implementation and
> >>>>>>>>>> propagation.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Surely, you and your fellows are invited to join
the project
> >> on
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> dev list and discuss
> >>>>>>>>> changes to the Apache Wave protocol. Please note,
so far I see
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> term "Apache Wave"
> >>>>>>>>> is a trademark of the Apache Software Foundation.
Developing
> >>>>> another
> >>>>>>>>> "Wave" protocol
> >>>>>>>>> outside of this project might make lead to trademark
confusion
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> need to be discussed
> >>>>>>>>> more in detail.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> While it is surely to our all benefit to join forces,
it needs
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>> clear that this project
> >>>>>>>>> is not necessary required to implement the specifications
of a
> >>>>> third
> >>>>>>>>> party. This being
> >>>>>>>>> said, it is better to discuss your proposed changes
here, on
> >> the
> >>>>>>>>> developer mailing list.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> All the best,
> >>>>>>>>> Christian
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> All the best,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> John Blossom
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> email: jblossom@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>> phone: 203.293.8511
> >>>>>>>>>> google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.timeandbill.de
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message