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 23:16:16 GMT
Angus,

Thanks so much to you and Michael, I appreciate your help with this
transition. I am tapping on some requirements specs, when it's appropriate
I would love to share them with this community.

All the best,

John Blossom

email: jblossom@gmail.com
phone: 203.293.8511
google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom


On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 7:13 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