incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam John ...@sterlingsolved.com>
Subject Re: Retirement
Date Wed, 31 Aug 2016 13:53:31 GMT
This is great information, Price ... thanks.

I also discovered some background info on Jon Leongs site, thanks for that
Jon. (go RIT!)

A quick skim and I really appreciate what Evan put together... this is very
good information and quite in line with what I had been working toward
documenting myself.

(as an aside, thanks Evan for the Gradle conversion!)

RE: Upayavira - you mentioned GitHub or I wouldn't have done that.  The Org
is renamed, https://github.com/anotherWave where forks are also now
present...

Look - we all float in and out of projects like this, based on time and
opportunity.  It is normal, expected, and adds value for reasons I'd be
happy to go into over a beer. ;)

We have "the will" in this community, and in my opinion where there is a
will - *there is a way*.

Perhaps a good next step is a conference call / Google hangout?
In order to allow time for the list to react/plan, I suggest 2 weeks from
now:
*Wednesday September 14 at 10:00am EST*

Please suggest alternate times / dates if needed... just putting a mark on
the wall here...

Thanks, all!

AJ

Adam John
(914) 623-8433
Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <http://mradamjohn.com/>

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Price Clark <gpwclark@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/1YnhcupFtReZyq5Y5QheIbYFO2epEh
> XGucNZE04r_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