incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Leong <jon.le...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Retirement
Date Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:32:35 GMT
Thanks for organizing Adam. That date /time is good.  Looking forward to
meeting everyone.

On Aug 31, 2016 9:59 AM, "Adam John" <aj@sterlingsolved.com> wrote:

> This is great thinking, Thomas!
>
> Can we use the Google Doc and add your thoughts there?
> Or a copy of it?
> I think email is great and all, but a Google Doc is a suitable Wave
> substitute for this work since in the end what I think we want here is A
> Plan.
>
> These are all excellent questions and worth proper discussion.
>
> 100%: small manageable steps.
>
> Any thoughts on a call / hangout to work things out?
>
> Requested attendees:
>
>    1. Greg Cochard
>    2. Jonathan Leong
>    3. Price Clark
>    4. Thomas Wrobel
>    5. Evan Hughes
>    6. *Everyone on this list!*
>
> ;)
>
> Thanks, again...
>
> AJ
>
> Adam John
> (914) 623-8433
> Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <http://mradamjohn.com/>
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > ""an entirely new Wave codebase""
> >
> > Or even the first building block that would become that.
> > If wave goal is defined as something like, "some sort of open
> > federated protocol to selectively share informative securely between
> > users"
> >
> > Would the first steps be too;
> > a) define how data is synced between servers.Presumably from
> > exchanging the changes.
> >     i) OT still I assume?
> > b) define how data is synced between clients.Presumably from
> > exchanging the changes.
> >    i) OT again? maybe closely related to above?
> > c) How to identify users?  (existing standard usable here?)
> >
> > d) Then start implementation of a reference server.
> > e) Then start implementation of a completely separated reference client.
> > f) THEN work on user interface aspects of the (various!) clients.
> >
> > This is all just spitballing. Feel free to put yay, nay or "hell no"
> > next to any of the above.
> > I just think if there is _any_ hope to survive outside apache we need
> > small, manageable steps - hopefully each one useful in itself.
> >
> > --
> > http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
> > http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator.
> >
> >
> > On 31 August 2016 at 13:53, Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Adam,
> > >
> > > Whilst I appreciate that you are trying to help with the ApacheWave
> > > repos, I really don't want us to go that way. Wave is already available
> > > on Github as https://github.com/apache/incubator-wave. If this project
> > > folds, and the code goes to live on on github, it must be called
> > > something other than *apache* wave, as to call it Apache XYZ would be a
> > > misuse of a trademark.
> > >
> > > Let's decide whether or not the project continues here, and if it
> > > doesn't, then we'll discuss what happens with the various parts of the
> > > project once that decision is made.
> > >
> > > I still think that the best course of action is for a few people to get
> > > together and produce an entirely new Wave codebase. We've tried, and
> > > failed with the codebase we have.
> > >
> > > Upayavira
> > >
> > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, at 08:25 AM, Adam John wrote:
> > >> Created a GitHub organization, added each of the available repos:
> > >> https://github.com/ApacheWave
> > >>
> > >> I think I invited everyone on this thread - however there are many
> > others
> > >> on the list.
> > >> All are welcome.
> > >>
> > >> Loss of Apache incubator status is significant as it means also
> > >> organizational loss, tools lost, and would effectively put a nail in
> the
> > >> coffin for the project.
> > >>
> > >> WebCMS, Jira, Jenkins, and Travis are all valuable tools, and part of
> > >> Incubator status.
> > >>
> > >> Quality code review (thanks, vega and wisebaldone etc) and an
> > established
> > >> process for the inclusion of new contributions by people familiar with
> > >> existing approaches and the work in progress... all of this is
> > >> significant.
> > >>
> > >> The people on this list - and even the list itself - both a service
> and
> > >> an
> > >> organization that would be a significant loss in any transition...
> > >>
> > >> I think the safety of the incubator is important, for these reasons
> and
> > >> more; and there needs to be improved communication, planning and
> > >> coordination... here again, just my opinion.
> > >>
> > >> AJ
> > >>
> > >> Adam John
> > >> (914) 623-8433
> > >> Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn
> > >> <http://mradamjohn.com/>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > The best future for Wave at Apache would, I think be to start an
> > >> > entirely new project at GitHub, and implement a Wave system that
> > people
> > >> > can actually understand. Once that gains traction, come back to the
> > >> > Incubator and ask to resurrect Apache Wave with that new codebase.
> > >> >
> > >> > The current codebase seems to be simply too complex for people to
be
> > >> > able to pick up. The idea stands as a good one, but the code is just
> > too
> > >> > complex.
> > >> >
> > >> > Upayavira
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, at 09:58 PM, Taylor Fahlman wrote:
> > >> > > I've been a reader of this list for a while. I am another one
of
> the
> > >> > > people
> > >> > > who would love to contribute, but literally have no idea where
to
> > start.
> > >> > > I
> > >> > > really think that if the code was divided a bit more it'd be
> easier
> > to
> > >> > > contribute, because I want to see this project keep going. It
> > really does
> > >> > > have a lot of potential in the current climate of silo-ed
> > communication
> > >> > > systems. An easy docker image would really help too.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:54 PM Thomas Wrobel <
> darkflame@gmail.com
> > >
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > While the code will always be there in some form, is there
any
> > real
> > >> > > > hope outside of Apache though? will it not just fizzle out?
> > >> > > > Apache provides somewhat needed pressure, structure and
to some
> > extent
> > >> > > > even prestige.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > While retirement is understandable necessity for things
without
> > >> > > > progress, its nevertheless sad for a project with such
> > potential.  Is
> > >> > > > it possible to put a call out for developers? a last warning?
a
> > >> > > > advert? something beyond this list?
> > >> > > > I have no idea what form it would take though. I am so ignorant
> > with
> > >> > > > big projects, both socially and structurally. Theres tools
out
> > there
> > >> > > > supposed to help motivate and organised (www.teamily.com)
dont
> > know
> > >> > > > how effectively they are though.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > It just all seems such a waste for wave to die, its death
> marking
> > a
> > >> > > > little lost hope for the open web to recover some ground
from
> the
> > >> > > > closed hubs that dominate today.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
> > >> > > > http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story
> > generator.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On 30 August 2016 at 21:41, Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk>
wrote:
> > >> > > > > Michael,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > As I said earlier in this thread, retirement means
the closure
> > of an
> > >> > > > > "apache" community. The code is already open source.
So long
> as
> > the
> > >> > > > > trademark and the Apache License V2 on the code are
respected,
> > as
> > >> > now,
> > >> > > > > anyone is free to do what they like with the code.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Thus, if someone (or someones) wanted to move it to
Github,
> > that'd be
> > >> > > > > fine. I'm sure Apache wouldn't object to them using
the name
> > "Wave"
> > >> > in
> > >> > > > > some form.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Upayavira
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, at 08:54 PM, Michael MacFadden
wrote:
> > >> > > > >> Yuri,
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >> Being a mostly silent participant at this point.
 I would
> tend
> > to
> > >> > agree
> > >> > > > >> with you.  I think however, we should provide a
“what next”
> > >> > option.  So
> > >> > > > >> for example, people might be more willing to retire
the
> > project if
> > >> > they
> > >> > > > >> knew for example we could move to github and still
allow
> > people to
> > >> > > > >> contribute and develop if they see fit.
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >> ~Michael
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >> On 8/30/16, 11:52 AM, "Yuri Z" <vega113@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >>     After some thought I hate to agree, that at
current
> levels
> > of
> > >> > > > >>     participation
> > >> > > > >>     the only rational choice is to decide to retire
as we are
> > just
> > >> > > > >>     wasting
> > >> > > > >>     Apache Foundation resources without any real
hope of
> > graduating.
> > >> > > > >>     Moreover, there were a few active projects
based on
> Apache
> > Wave
> > >> > that
> > >> > > > >>     felt
> > >> > > > >>     little motivation to contribute back actively.
I think
> > this is
> > >> > > > >>     because they
> > >> > > > >>     found little need in Apache Foundation resources,
while
> > >> > contributing
> > >> > > > >>     back
> > >> > > > >>     required certain effort to comply with Apache
rules.
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >>     I think we should hold a retirement vote and
either
> recruit
> > >> > > > >>     sufficient
> > >> > > > >>     number of supporters willing and able actively
> participate
> > >> > > > >>     immediately, or
> > >> > > > >>     retire.
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >>     On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 9:13 PM Jonathan Leong
<
> > >> > jon.leong@gmail.com
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >>     wrote:
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >>     > I would hate to see this project retire.
> > >> > > > >>     >
> > >> > > > >>     > Adam you bring up good points. I can get
the ball
> > rolling with
> > >> > > > the Docker
> > >> > > > >>     > image. I'll see what I can get done over
the next week
> > or so.
> > >> > > > >>     >
> > >> > > > >>     >
> > >> > > > >>     > -Jonathan Leong
> > >> > > > >>     >
> > >> > > > >>     >
> > >> > > > >>     > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Adam
John <
> > >> > aj@sterlingsolved.com>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >>     >
> > >> > > > >>     > > I have to weigh in and say that I
agree that the bar
> > here
> > >> > was
> > >> > > > set high
> > >> > > > >>     > from
> > >> > > > >>     > > several perspectives.
> > >> > > > >>     > >
> > >> > > > >>     > > I'm currently evaluating what components
of this
> > project
> > >> > can be
> > >> > > > most
> > >> > > > >>     > useful
> > >> > > > >>     > > for incorporation into 2 separate
projects. If either
> > one
> > >> > moves
> > >> > > > forward
> > >> > > > >>     > in
> > >> > > > >>     > > the next 6 months, there will be
more developers
> > actively
> > >> > > > involved here.
> > >> > > > >>     > >
> > >> > > > >>     > > That said, I've watched some of the
transition videos
> > from
> > >> > > > Google folks
> > >> > > > >>     > and
> > >> > > > >>     > > read a lot of the docs, reviewed
code and worked on
> > >> > > > implementing this
> > >> > > > >>     > > project for myself.  It is daunting
and would benefit
> > >> > overall
> > >> > > > from 2
> > >> > > > >>     > > significant - imho critical - updates;
> > >> > > > >>     > > (1) the Product itself needs real
changes - like the
> > >> > concept of
> > >> > > > bots
> > >> > > > >>     > needs
> > >> > > > >>     > > pulled out from core terminology
and revamped as a
> more
> > >> > current
> > >> > > > common
> > >> > > > >>     > > concept / ie agents.  There needs
to be better
> > organization
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > >>     > Product
> > >> > > > >>     > > from concept to contribution.  This
is not to
> diminish
> > the
> > >> > vast
> > >> > > > resources
> > >> > > > >>     > > present, only to highlight an improvement
area.
> > >> > > > >>     > > (2) the Architecture needs serious
review and
> revision
> > to
> > >> > > > figure out how
> > >> > > > >>     > > best to leverage other projects and
allow focus on
> the
> > >> > specific
> > >> > > > benefits
> > >> > > > >>     > > this project enables.  The technology
stack overall
> > needs
> > >> > better
> > >> > > > >>     > separation
> > >> > > > >>     > > at least from a newcomers perspective.
> > >> > > > >>     > > As a third factor, and #1 on my list
for adoption is
> > rolling
> > >> > > > docker
> > >> > > > >>     > images
> > >> > > > >>     > > for the project.  This is essential
in my humble
> > opinion to
> > >> > > > allow new
> > >> > > > >>     > > developers to focus on the pieces
they feel most
> > equipped to
> > >> > > > contribute
> > >> > > > >>     > > comfortably...
> > >> > > > >>     > >
> > >> > > > >>     > > I don't know how the major changes
I am suggesting
> get
> > >> > > > introduced and
> > >> > > > >>     > > discussed in much more detail.  I'm
hoping that
> > perhaps I
> > >> > lieue
> > >> > > > of a
> > >> > > > >>     > > potentially dismissive email "vote"
... Maybe a
> virtual
> > >> > > > conference would
> > >> > > > >>     > be
> > >> > > > >>     > > of interest?  I would hope that the
participants of
> > such a
> > >> > > > convention
> > >> > > > >>     > would
> > >> > > > >>     > > be the core of a nascent rebirth.
 Yes I am
> > volunteering to
> > >> > > > help take
> > >> > > > >>     > this
> > >> > > > >>     > > on if there is interest...
> > >> > > > >>     > >
> > >> > > > >>     > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > >>     > >
> > >> > > > >>     > > Adam John
> > >> > > > >>     > > (914) 623-8433
> > >> > > > >>     > >
> > >> > > > >>     > > On Aug 30, 2016 12:43 PM, "Zachary
Yaro" <
> > zmyaro@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >>     > >
> > >> > > > >>     > > I am in a similar boat.  I have front-end
development
> > >> > skills,
> > >> > > > but I
> > >> > > > >>     > > struggle to fully understand the
back-end
> > functionality or
> > >> > begin
> > >> > > > >>     > separating
> > >> > > > >>     > > the client from the server.
> > >> > > > >>     > >
> > >> > > > >>     > > Zachary Yaro
> > >> > > > >>     > >
> > >> > > > >>     > > On Aug 30, 2016 11:51 AM, "Thomas
Wrobel" <
> > >> > darkflame@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >>     > >
> > >> > > > >>     > > > I have tried on 3 separate occasions
to understand
> > the
> > >> > > > server. Its
> > >> > > > >>     > > > simply not in my skillset and
I don't have the time
> > to
> > >> > learn.
> > >> > > > I don't
> > >> > > > >>     > > > wish to sound arrogant there,
theres learning
> needed
> > for
> > >> > > > anything of
> > >> > > > >>     > > > course. But its too much investment
-  I want to
> > apply
> > >> > skills
> > >> > > > that I
> > >> > > > >>     > > > already have. Last time I tried
to get into wave
> > >> > development
> > >> > > > (which
> > >> > > > >>     > > > was I admit a few years back)
it took me 3 days to
> > even
> > >> > > > compile the
> > >> > > > >>     > > > server. Which is frustrating
for someone that just
> > wants
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > work on a
> > >> > > > >>     > > > client.
> > >> > > > >>     > > >
> > >> > > > >>     > > > So I am certainly not waiting
for permission, I am
> > waiting
> > >> > > > for a
> > >> > > > >>     > > > prerequisite  of a server/client
split. I
> understand
> > I can
> > >> > > > neither
> > >> > > > >>     > > > demand or expect such a thing.
Developers on a
> > project
> > >> > like
> > >> > > > this just
> > >> > > > >>     > > > have to jump in on what they
feel like. Nothing can
> > >> > really be
> > >> > > > expected
> > >> > > > >>     > > > and I accept that.
> > >> > > > >>     > > > I simply am informing there's
"lesser" developers
> > like me
> > >> > > > that could
> > >> > > > >>     > > > work on bits if certain other
things happen.
> > >> > > > >>     > > >
> > >> > > > >>     > >
> > >> > > > >>     >
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message