incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pablo Ojanguren <pablo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Retirement
Date Mon, 05 Sep 2016 12:10:40 GMT
I forgot to metion two things also can help to get contributors:

SwellRT has mentored a student this last GSoC to move federation from XMPP
to Matrix. The code needs a deep peer review before merging into Wave
https://github.com/Waqee/incubator-wave

We are running a development contest this month, http://swellrt.org/contest/



2016-09-04 22:04 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Leong <jon.leong@gmail.com>:

> The 28th works for me
>
> On Sep 4, 2016 1:40 PM, "Greg Cochard" <greg.cochard@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The 28th should work for me. I'm definitely for breaking apart the
> backend
> > and frontend. A clean separation via an API layer will make iterating and
> > frontend experimentation much easier.
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 3, 2016, 9:44 AM Michael MacFadden <
> > michael.macfadden@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I can participate for either date.  But the 28th works better for me,
> and
> > > if it works better for Yuri, I would think that would be ideal also.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/3/16, 9:29 AM, "Adam John" <aj@sterlingsolved.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >     @thomas .. I agree that what Pablo has offered is both significant
> > and
> > >     seems to resolve a number of items that have been established as
> > > important.
> > >
> > >     @yuri .. also agree with these points.
> > >
> > >     @pablo I think we should adjust the date - earlier is probably not
> a
> > > good
> > >     idea as it gives most people very short notice about a call on a
> > "short
> > >     week" in the US, and on the week that many schools start...  So,
> > while
> > > not
> > >     preferred to push the date out 2 weeks I think it is the better
> > choice.
> > >
> > >     Any thoughts on the date change and meeting info below?
> > >
> > >     Old Date:
> > >     Wednesday September 14 at 10:00am EST
> > >     New Date:
> > >     *Wednesday September 28 at 10:00am EST*
> > >
> > >     Agenda (WIP):
> > >     * Discuss option to bring swellrt into wave - expected result will
> be
> > > "yes"
> > >     or "no" if possible
> > >     * Establish priorities/plan - reference The Wavy Future document
> > (link
> > >     <
> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YnhcupFtReZyq5Y5QheIbYFO2epEh
> > XGucNZE04r_oA4/edit
> > > >
> > >     )
> > >     * Set next steps - including the next full group meeting/discussion
> > >     Please add/change this agenda as you see fit.
> > >
> > >     Requested attendees:
> > >        1. Greg Cochard
> > >        2. Jonathan Leong
> > >        3. Price Clark
> > >        4. Thomas Wrobel
> > >        5. Evan Hughes
> > >        7. Pablo Ojanguren
> > >        6. *Everyone on this list!*
> > >
> > >     Thanks, folks.
> > >
> > >     AJ
> > >
> > >     Adam John
> > >     (914) 623-8433
> > >     Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <
> > > http://mradamjohn.com/>
> > >
> > >     On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >     > On 1 September 2016 at 17:04, Pablo Ojanguren <
> pablojan@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >     > > I have been developing a fork of Apache Wave for 2 years (
> > > swellrt.org) I
> > >     > > can say I have very good knowledge of wave's server and gwt
> > > client, I
> > >     > have
> > >     > > made changes in almost all the layers of Wave with more or less
> > > impact.
> > >     > > IMHO to start a wave-like project from scratch is an extremly
> > > large and
> > >     > > complex project. All we tend to think to build something from
> > > scratch is
> > >     > > easier than understand  something already done.
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     > > The only thing I can offer to the community is to help other
> > > developers
> > >     > to
> > >     > > APIfy the exiting code, removing the GWT UI parts, and
> transform
> > > the rest
> > >     > > into a Javascript API in order to use any frontend framework.
> > >     >
> > >     > Thats a huge "only"!
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     > > Also I was asked to contribute the whole SwellRT API to Wave,
> > this
> > > is
> > >     > > another option I am happy to do if the community finds ok, but
> > > also I
> > >     > would
> > >     > > need help from more developers.
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     > At this point surely this should be seriously considered.?
> > >     > If your willing to do that, maybe the best result for effort is
> > >     > everyone now helping get your work into the main wave project.
> > >     >
> > >     > This seems significant enough to me to even offer wave a stay  of
> > >     > execution from Apache, provided we can agree this is the way
> > forward?
> > >     > Your work seems to solve a few problems slowing down progress,
> > while
> > >     > simultaneously being also being a fairly big contribution in
> > itself.
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     > Group; may I suggest this option be seriously discussed first
> > before
> > >     > settling on migration/retirement?
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     > >
> > >     > > 2016-09-01 8:35 GMT+02:00 Ed - 0x1b, Inc. <wave@0x1b.com>:
> > >     > >
> > >     > >> Adam - I don't know if this will post to the Apache list,
but
> > >     > >> ApacheWave will have problems with the use of the word Apache
> -
> > > call
> > >     > >> it something different - like StandingWave - you get the
idea
> -
> > I
> > >     > >> think Github is a great host, especially if you can get the
> > >     > >> <newname>.io domain etc
> > >     > >>
> > >     > >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Adam John <
> > > aj@sterlingsolved.com>
> > >     > 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