incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Price Clark <gpwcl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Retirement
Date Wed, 31 Aug 2016 04:30:41 GMT
Just wanted to say I'm another (albeit young) developer that would be
really sad if the project died. I've also tried several times to do
different things to the project e.g. tackling some bugs I found filed from
long ago but had little luck.... and eventually stopped because it wasn't
very clear to me where the project was going or what work needed doing
most. It seems like a conference, as Adam John was saying, might help
people interested currently to talk to actual committers about what they
are trying to do/what needs to be done.

A while back Evan converted the project to Gradle and that was immensely
helpful and probably in the spirit of the kind of work that makes
onboarding easier. He also put out a plan of action about the sorts of
things that needed doing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YnhcupFtReZyq5Y5QheIbYFO2epEhXGucNZE04r_oA4/edit,
which seems like another good place to start. On that note would more work
in the docker realm (once again, as Adam John was saying) with good
instructions on the http://incubator.apache.org/wave/get-involved.html
page help lower friction even more to getting involved? While it's not
glitzy I would definitely be willing to spend time with Greg Cochard and
Jonathan Leong into making some of that happen as I know that is exactly
the kind of work that would make me much more inclined/able to spend free
time working on the project.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:01 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