Great work Thomas, thanks!
Just one suggestion - can we move the discussion to Google Wave?

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Thomas Wrobel <[email protected]> wrote:

> I wrote a early draft here;
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=14AbilsPE6NRTwBildiTtSQ4I5T3Is7lbmgHnUt95lMc
>
> Let me know if I am going along the right lines, and I'll correct/add
> to based on feedback.
>
> -Thomas
>
> ~~~~~~
> Reviews of anything, by anyone;
> www.rateoholic.co.uk
> Please try out my new site and give feedback :)
>
>
>
> On 29 August 2011 17:16, Michael MacFadden <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > done.
> >
> >
> > On Aug 29, 2011, at 7:16 AM, Yuri Z wrote:
> >
> >> @Michael, Can you please add Thomas to contributors so he would be able
> to assign the JIRA task to himself?
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Yuri Z <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Yeah :) Thanks
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Thomas Wrobel <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> Would this do as the task;
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WAVE-290
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29 August 2011 15:50, Paul Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > Epic? WAIB goes under there.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________
> >> > From: Thomas Wrobel <[email protected]>
> >> > To: [email protected]
> >> > Sent: Mon, 29 August, 2011 14:30:16
> >> > Subject: Re: Update Wiki for Apache Wave
> >> >
> >> > Sure...should I categorise this as just a "TASK" or maybe a
> >> > "STORY".....kinda new to all this so not sure what category this issue
> >> > would fall under. (I dread to think what gets put under "EPIC" !)
> >> >
> >> > -Thomas
> >> >
> >> > ~~~~~~
> >> > Reviews of anything, by anyone;
> >> > www.rateoholic.co.uk
> >> > Please try out my new site and give feedback :)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 29 August 2011 14:44, Yuri Z <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> Thanks for picking this up Thomas. You can open an issue in the Wave
> JIRA
> >> >> for this and assign it to yourself.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Thomas Wrobel <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Seeing as I didn't have much luck picking apart the code, I could
> have
> >> >>> a go at this. At least to put more details in then there is now.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Probably need checking over after I'm done for accuracy/missing
> >> >>> information. (and spelling...)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Shall I sign up for the task?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -Thomas Wrobel
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ~~~~~~
> >> >>> Reviews of anything, by anyone;
> >> >>> www.rateoholic.co.uk
> >> >>> Please try out my new site and give feedback :)
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 27 August 2011 14:09, Yuri Z <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>> > I think a good first step for creation Apache Wave Wiki page would
> be
> >> >>> fill
> >> >>> > in the "History" part of the "About Apache Wave" page at
> >> >>> > http://incubator.apache.org/wave/about.html.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Currently the "History" contains the following TODO: "Lets
> summarize
> >> >>> Google
> >> >>> > Wave, Fed One, Wave in a Box, Apache Wave, the protocol, etc. It
> will be
> >> >>> > interesting to keep this information for people to understand how
> the
> >> >>> > project has evolved."
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Would be great of someone would take on the task to address this
> TODO.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Yuri Z <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >> Great! Thanks for taking on this!
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> 2011/8/10 Jérémy Naegel <[email protected]>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>> Suggestion made here :
> >> >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apache_Wave#Apache_Wave
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>> - Jeremy
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Jérémy Naegel <
> [email protected]>
> >> >>> >>> wrote:
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>> > What I'm not familiar with is the Wikipedia revision /
> revocation of
> >> >>> >>> > changes policy...
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>> > I'll try to suggest that change inside the discussion page and
> see if
> >> >>> it
> >> >>> >>> > triggers any reaction.
> >> >>> >>> > After a few days without reactions or with positive reactions,
> I
> >> >>> guess
> >> >>> >>> it
> >> >>> >>> > would be OK to change back the title.
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>> > Then it will be possible to create a new "Apache Wave" entry
> (as it
> >> >>> >>> won't
> >> >>> >>> > be a duplicate).
> >> >>> >>> > I could start it, with the Apache Wave website definition and
> some
> >> >>> >>> general
> >> >>> >>> > infos, but I won't be able to add technical details.
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>> > Btw, If someone whose mother tongue is English wants to help,
> that
> >> >>> would
> >> >>> >>> be
> >> >>> >>> > much appreciated!
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>> > - Jeremy
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Yuri Z <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>> >> I see. So I guess that's what should be done. The entry
> should be
> >> >>> >>> renamed
> >> >>> >>> >> back to Google Wave and a new entry for Apache Wave (and Wave
> in a
> >> >>> Box)
> >> >>> >>> >> should be created.
> >> >>> >>> >> I am not that familiar with the standards for creating Wiki
> entries,
> >> >>> >>> also,
> >> >>> >>> >>  I personally would prefer to spend my spare time on actually
> >> >>> creating
> >> >>> >>> >> patches for WIAB. So I thought that maybe some non technical
> >> >>> community
> >> >>> >>> >> member would like to take on this (actually very important)
> task.
> >> >>> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>> >> 2011/8/10 Jérémy Naegel <[email protected]>
> >> >>> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>> >> > About this Apache Wave Wikipedia page : It was, up until a
> couple
> >> >>> of
> >> >>> >>> >> > months,
> >> >>> >>> >> > the Google Wave page and it has simply been renamed Apache
> Wave. I
> >> >>> >>> think
> >> >>> >>> >> it
> >> >>> >>> >> > was a bad move, this page should have stayed the Google
> Wave page
> >> >>> >>> since
> >> >>> >>> >> > Google Wave is still an existing service, and a new Apache
> Wave
> >> >>> page
> >> >>> >>> >> should
> >> >>> >>> >> > have been created from scratch since it's a fresh start for
> the
> >> >>> >>> product.
> >> >>> >>> >> I
> >> >>> >>> >> > think the renaming edit of the page should simply be
> undone, but I
> >> >>> >>> guess
> >> >>> >>> >> > this will trigger a debate among the contributors.
> >> >>> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >>> >> > - Jeremy
> >> >>> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >>> >> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Dan Peterson <
> >> >>> [email protected]
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>> >> > wrote:
> >> >>> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >>> >> > > Agreed -- go for it!
> >> >>> >>> >> > >
> >> >>> >>> >> > >
> >> >>> >>> >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> >>> >>> >> > > From: Upayavira [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> >>> >>> >> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 04:33 AM
> >> >>> >>> >> > > To: [email protected] <
> >> >>> [email protected]>
> >> >>> >>> >> > > Subject: Re: Update Wiki for Apache Wave
> >> >>> >>> >> > >
> >> >>> >>> >> > > I'd say just do it. If anyone wants to help, they will
> have an
> >> >>> >>> 'edit'
> >> >>> >>> >> > > button too.
> >> >>> >>> >> > >
> >> >>> >>> >> > > Upayavira
> >> >>> >>> >> > >
> >> >>> >>> >> > > On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 22:25 +0300, "Yuri Z" <
> [email protected]>
> >> >>> >>> wrote:
> >> >>> >>> >> > > > I stumbled upon the Wiki page for Apache
> >> >>> >>> >> > > > Wave<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Wave>- and my
> >> >>> >>> impression
> >> >>> >>> >> was
> >> >>> >>> >> > > > that it's of very low quality and conveys very
> >> >>> >>> >> > > > little information about Apache Wave and Wave in a Box
> >> >>> project.
> >> >>> >>> Most
> >> >>> >>> >> of
> >> >>> >>> >> > > > the
> >> >>> >>> >> > > > information is related to Google Wave. I  thought that
> it
> >> >>> could
> >> >>> >>> be
> >> >>> >>> >> nice
> >> >>> >>> >> > > > to
> >> >>> >>> >> > > > discuss how we can improve /restructure the Wiki entry
> for
> >> >>> Apache
> >> >>> >>> >> Wave.
> >> >>> >>> >> > > >
> >> >>> >>> >> > >
> >> >>> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to