incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Fleeky Flanco <fle...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Hello
Date Sun, 26 May 2013 00:36:06 GMT
If someone can point me to the appropriate sources and approriate wiki i
wouldnt mind cut/paste formatting some data for this project. i dont have
much time to do any real development on this but i can do that. i really
want to see this project succeed.


On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Max pane <yourhty@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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