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 Sun, 04 Sep 2016 16:28:35 GMT
@adam 28th is perfect. thanks a lot for changing the date.

@yuri thanks for your words.

I look forward to discuss the fusion of the projects. In the meantime, I
will happy to clarify any point about SwellRT. I guess the more info for
the Wave community the better.

2016-09-03 18:44 GMT+02:00 Michael MacFadden <michael.macfadden@gmail.com>:

> 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