incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Blossom <jblos...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Hello
Date Sat, 25 May 2013 16:16:06 GMT
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