On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 17:15 -0500, Hunger wrote: > I agree with your general strategy. > > But (and I totally concede I may just be uninformed or naive here): I'm not > sure why we need to call an autonomo.us implementation of Wave a "fork" at > this point in time and why we'd need grant money at this point in time (and > I think it's even debatable whether either of the two will be necessary in > the future; note the myriads of XMPP providers out there which operate > autonomously and note also that none of them as far as I'm aware call what > they do "forks").
By "friendly fork" I mean a separate development team, independently making releases, yet with the intent to try to keep the separate releases interoperable and to share patches between the two releases. I think that the "autonomo.us philosophy" implies that Wave is potentially a very good thing for lots of reasons, not least its potential to liberate users from centralized, surveillance-based social networking services. If Wave were fully free, "we" would be putting our money where our mouths are, so to speak, in advancing the promise of Wave. Which raises the question of "what money?!?" Which is why I included, in the suggestion, forming a legal entity and asking for some. I think such a deal makes sense from the Google perspective as well, for a bunch of reasons, but I'm not anxious to rehearse those on list at just this time. > My general concern, as hinted above, is that I think we frankly have little > to show or offer at this point in time -- e.g., we have as far as I > understand barely even attempted implementing the protocol -- and in that > sense, I'm not sure why Google would want to work with us. Does it hurt to > ask? Possibly. You can starve asking for a banquet. I read that as "why would Google have any confidence in 'us'"? A request from this group would have enough weight that Google would have to at least briefly consider the question of why they should have any confidence in us. And I think we help them answer that question for themselves by having a frank and open discussion with them (and among ourselves) as to roughly what the plan is and who will execute it and how. Not everything has to be reduced to a "soundbite". > I think given my concern re our own progress, I think I'd rather just see > folks in the community continue their work, ask for things as we need them, > and make a fuss when needed. It's not my intention to disrupt any ongoing work or, frankly, to "make a fuss". I think the proposal can be a "win-win" for both this community and Google. -t > > On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:47:24 -0700, Thomas Lord <l...@emf.net> wrote: > > Let's start by asking nicely. > > > > I ask the autonomo.us leadership to join me > > in an experiment regarding Google Wave. The > > risks of this experiment are few, but the potential > > "upside" very large. In other words one could > > say the experiment is "worth a try". > > > > Let's simply ask Google, in a formal way, > > to play nice and invest in freedom. The worst > > they can do is to say "no". > > > > I suggest that we ask Google for: > > > > 1. All the Wave source code, under a GPL-compatible > > free software license. > > > > 2. Liaison with the group of core Wave developers. > > > > 3. An understanding that our intent is to make a > > "friendly fork" - a fork characterized by > > bi-directional patch sharing and the goal of > > maintaining compatibility. At the same time, > > our fork becomes a "second supplier" of Wave > > technology, viable on its own, and with an > > independent design effort. > > > > 4. Grant money. The initial purposes of this grant > > money are to fund the creation of a legal > > entity to receive it (e.g., but not necessarily, > > autonomo.us as an NPO), to substantially help > > cover the (likely small) administrative costs > > of that legal entity for 2 years, and to staff > > the organization with - let's say - 3 full time > > programmers for two years, 2 F.T.Es in > > commissioned work, and 2 F.T.Es for executive > > positions. The range here is low-seven-figures > > over two years. > > > > I suggest that we offer Google: > > > > 1. Public acknowledgment and praise for taking > > such a step. > > > > 2. A strong intent (not obligation) to keep the fork > > "friendly" - to work with the Wave developers and > > try to keep in sync. > > > > 3. A commitment to spend the money for developers > > half of wave, and half on building free web services > > generally. This includes doubling down on the effort > > to simply think through what freedom respecting > > web services are and how they can work in the market > > place. > > > > 4. Liaison with Google about "what we come up with" > > regarding the implementation and deployment of > > freedom respecting web services. > > > > A formal "ask" of Google could reasonably > > include some statements from autonomo.us folks > > about the mission, and some statements about a larger > > technical vision. (It's *not* ready yet but you can > > see first glimpses of the technical direction I > > think is wise at http://basiscraft.com/in-progress/w3os-index.xml ) > > > > -t > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@lists.autonomo.us > > http://lists.autonomo.us/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.autonomo.us http://lists.autonomo.us/mailman/listinfo/discuss
