incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael MacFadden <michael.macfad...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Hello
Date Sun, 26 May 2013 00:01:15 GMT
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
View raw message