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 Fri, 02 Sep 2016 13:03:52 GMT
I can't make it from Sept, 10th to Sept 26th.
Is there any choice to set an earlier date?

2016-09-01 18:25 GMT+02:00 Adam John <aj@sterlingsolved.com>:

> @pablo awesome!
> @thomas lol
> @ed ... yes, switched it over to "anotherWave" for now. ;)
> Open to suggestions.
>
> Here is a link to a calendar item on the suggested date/time to discuss
> the project.
> There is a Google Hangout included for the conference.
>
> Wednesday September 14 at 10:00am EST
> (https://calendar.google.com/calendar/event?action=TEMPLATE&
> tmeid=c2dzZTBsbmQ4dGdnc3YyZzRmYWI5cDhlMGsgYWpAc3Rlcmxpbmdzb2
> x2ZWQuY29t&tmsrc=aj%40sterlingsolved.com)
>
> Lets stay open to changing the date/time until tomorrow: Friday 5pm.
>
> This way we can push the date to an evening or weekend if additional
> people can call in... but unless someone proposes another time, it isn't
> changing. ;)
>
> Thanks, and talk soon!
>
> AJ
>
> Adam John
> (914) 623-8433
> Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <http://mradamjohn.com/>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:04 AM, 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. I did
>> something analog in SwellRT, but removing all Wave's conversation stuff.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Hope it helps!
>>
>>
>> 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