incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bradley D. Thornton" <Brad...@NorthTech.US>
Subject Re: Retirement
Date Sat, 15 Oct 2016 18:52:58 GMT
This is the link below that I cannot seem to locate.

On 8/30/2016 11:25 PM, Adam John 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.
>>>>>>      > > >
>>>>>>      > >
>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


Mime
View raw message