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 23:00:53 GMT
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