Let me know any on needs Virtual private server for testings
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Michael MacFadden < [email protected]> wrote: > Angus, > > I can take care of the notice. > > ~Michael > > On May 25, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Angus Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > As I said earlier, we're working towards moving all the documentation > onto > > the apache wave wiki, so it's all in one place, as it's currently > scattered > > over 3 or 4 sites. I suggest we put a notice up on the wave-protocol > > mailing list that disucssion is taking place on this mailing list. > > > > Thanks > > Angus Turner > > [email protected] > > > > > > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:00 AM, John Blossom <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Michael, > >> > >> I read this one first, but respond to it secondly. > >> > >> I would encourage you to proceed with the migration. If Google support > is > >> deprecated, then we need to make that completely unambiguous for anyone > >> trying to learn about our efforts. I am excited that there is the > potential > >> to move forward with the protocol via the Apache community, which I am > sure > >> will welcome additional contributors. > >> > >> All the best, > >> > >> John Blossom > >> > >> email: [email protected] > >> phone: 203.293.8511 > >> google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Michael MacFadden < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> John, > >>> > >>> You concerns are valid. I worked directly with the Google team in > moving > >>> the project to Apache. In fact, I worked with the Google engineers to > >>> identify Apache as the target and I helped write the application to > >> become > >>> an incubator project. What I can tell you is that there is no one at > >>> google shepherding the Wave Protocol. We had talked about moving the > >> wave > >>> protocol itself over to Apache or possible over to IETF, or IEEE. > >>> Essentially, when Wave moved from Apache to Google, the only people > >>> working on the protocol are those working on Apache Wave. I still have > >>> administrator access to waveprotocol.org as I was a contributor there > as > >>> well. > >>> > >>> My impression is that if there is a group of people that would work on > >>> moving the protocol itself forward, that they would be suited to do > that > >>> in the Apache Wave community. The idea was always that AFTER a stable > >>> reference implementation was build and the protocol was shown to be > >>> robust, we would move it to an RFC, W3C, or IEEE standard. However, > >>> working on them separately is just not a viable option with the current > >>> maturity of the community. > >>> > >>> We have had an open task to move all of the documentation on wave > >>> protocol.org over to Apache, we just haven't executed that yet. My > >>> personal opinion is that wave is currently a small community. Trying > to > >>> manage TWO communities right now is not feasible. > >>> > >>> As far as the community, several people have been active with the code > >> and > >>> several people have been active in other ways. As I mentioned I have > >>> access to both communities as an admin, so I might be a good person to > >>> help figure this out. > >>> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> > >>> ~Michael > >>> > >>> On 5/25/13 9:16 AM, "John Blossom" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Pratik, > >>>> > >>>> Thank you for your thoughtful comments. These are the sorts of > delicate > >>>> issues with which I and others have been wrestling. I believe that > your > >>>> summary is quite good, and I am eager to receive additional points of > >>>> view. > >>>> Wave concepts are very valid even today, and can take on a new light > in > >> an > >>>> era of mobile-first Web communications. To me the importance of > >>>> establishing the protocol and the federation scheme is critical for > the > >>>> success of all Wave products - without it, Wave will be less than > email, > >>>> and therefore never come close to one of its original goals to make > >> email > >>>> redundant. More importantly, perhaps, social media platforms and other > >>>> collaborative communications tools are increasingly proprietary in > >> nature > >>>> - > >>>> or at least owned or dominated by large companies. There appears to > be a > >>>> market gap for vendor-independent collaborative communications that > can > >>>> scale across any number of up-to-date applications models. > >>>> > >>>> I am applying the Wave Principles to this discussion, and hope that > >> others > >>>> will also. There are other open discussions also, of course, that are > >> more > >>>> conceptual and collegial in their nature. > >>>> > >>>> There is no keeper of Wave at Google - I think that it's very safe to > >>>> offer > >>>> that definitively. They have products that have used Wave concepts, > such > >>>> as > >>>> Google Drive Realtime API, but the code itself appears to be > completely > >>>> deprecated and Wave is never mentioned by anyone at Google directly in > >>>> public and in private I doubt that it's done either. The lack of > >> activity > >>>> on the Google Group speaks for itself - Google is disinvested in Wave > >>>> except to borrow concepts from it. > >>>> > >>>> Your point about the Google code being referred to as canonical yet > >>>> pointing to the Apache site for where it's moving underscores the > >> delicate > >>>> situation. One could conclude, right or wrong, that Wave is not > >> supported > >>>> well in part because it's not entirely definitive that people > developing > >>>> its code base via Apache can do what they would deem appropriate to > >> create > >>>> new iterations of canonical code. I would appreciate clarification on > >> this > >>>> point, and I imagine other would, also. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> All the best, > >>>> > >>>> John Blossom > >>>> > >>>> email: [email protected] > >>>> phone: 203.293.8511 > >>>> google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Pratik Paranjape < > >>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I had studied this point a while back, and for all practical > >> purposes, I > >>>>> had to conclude that the development of wave-protocol is very tightly > >>>>> tied > >>>>> to the development of the Wave as application. Please consider > >> following > >>>>> points: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1) Community Principles: > >>>>> http://www.waveprotocol.org/wave-community-principles > >>>>> The guidelines are quite open and discussion is encouraged to be > >>>>> public, for all parties involved. > >>>>> 2) The wave-protocol site: https://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/ > >>>>> Community principles mention google-code site as canonical > >> reference > >>>>> for protocol, but the protocol site itself clearly states > >>>>> that the project is moving to Apache. No separate wave-protocol > >>>>> project mentioned. > >>>>> 3) The wave-protocol Google group: > >>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/wave-protocol > >>>>> The group has no activity since Jan 2011. > >>>>> > >>>>> It makes sense that the protocol should evolve based on the feedback > >> of > >>>>> actual use in production environment, which as it stands right now, > >> most > >>>>> likely will be coming through the use of Apache Wave (in a box). > >>>>> > >>>>> That said, there can be finer legal issues which are not matter of > >>>>> public > >>>>> documentation. Is there a governing body at Google for wave-protocol? > >>>>> Can > >>>>> someone from Google comment on it? > >>>>> > >>>>> /** Start of Opinions from an interested party**/ > >>>>> > >>>>> On general note, since John initiated a discussion, laying out my 2 > >>>>> cents. > >>>>> Even though Wave did not go the spectacular path it was originally > >>>>> designed > >>>>> for, I think both the protocol and the platform (CC-OT, Wave Model > and > >>>>> the > >>>>> Client) have enough merits to make it into several fantastic products > >>>>> with > >>>>> certain aspects tweaked. > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Simplification of the client > >>>>> 2. Clear use cases, differentiation on the basis of intended users, > >> e.g. > >>>>> a) Technical and non-technical audience > >>>>> b) Features that are useful in Wiki vs features that are useful in > >>>>> general purpose communication platform parallel to email. (Do you > want > >>>>> the > >>>>> other party to read the email exactly as you are typing it? ) > >>>>> 3. Better integration with existing email technologies/servers for > >>>>> smoother > >>>>> transition from email (through POP, IMAP) > >>>>> 4. As John pointed out, some direction towards Mobile adoption > >>>>> 5. ... > >>>>> > >>>>> I am curious to know if anybody else here agrees with the summary > >> above, > >>>>> and with the opinion that the Wave needs redirection in order to have > >>>>> mainstream success. For a complex project as wave, everything depends > >> on > >>>>> the community momentum, and its a chicken-egg problem. > >>>>> I understand that some may think its a too big a change to be talking > >>>>> about, ( and that coming from a non-contributor). Aim is to just > >> collect > >>>>> ideas and to check if there are others who feel the same way. I am > >>>>> currently busy on a different start-up project, but have definite > >> plans > >>>>> to > >>>>> play with Wave in its communication platform form, as I get the > >> chance. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think to this point, objective has been to get WAIB up and running > >> at > >>>>> the > >>>>> level of production deployment. Kune.cc has been using wave in > >>>>> production, > >>>>> if they are willing, their feedback and adoption report can be of > >> great > >>>>> help. The current contributors have been doing a great job of getting > >>>>> the > >>>>> client-server running, taking over from somewhat not-ready source the > >>>>> project received. > >>>>> > >>>>> /** End Opinions **/ > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Pratik Paranjape. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Thomas Wrobel <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Theres also the need for a Wave client/server protocol standard > >> (akin > >>>>> to > >>>>>> what POP3 or IMAP is for email), that seems to be in a limbo for a > >>>>> very > >>>>>> long time. > >>>>>> As someone very eager to work on native mobile clients, this has > >> been > >>>>> a > >>>>>> hold up. No one can make mobile clients at the moment without also > >>>>> running > >>>>>> their own server. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -Thomas Wrobel > >>>>>> (Interested 3rd party..) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ~~~ > >>>>>> Thomas & Bertines online review show: > >>>>>> http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html > >>>>>> Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 25 May 2013 15:05, Upayavira <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> John, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Others may clarify more, but it was my understanding that the wave > >>>>>>> protocol was not to come over to Apache - Apache only received a > >>>>> partial > >>>>>>> implementation, Wave in a Box. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So you'd certainly be right that the protocol itself hasn't moved > >> at > >>>>>>> Apache - that hasn't been the remit here. I believe they have a > >>>>> google > >>>>>>> group for discussing the protocol itself, but not sure how active > >>>>> that > >>>>>>> list is. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The Apache Wave project is focused around producing an > >>>>> implementation > >>>>> of > >>>>>>> the protocol. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> HTH! Upayavira > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sat, May 25, 2013, at 12:31 PM, John Blossom wrote: > >>>>>>>> Christian, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks for the information. I was addressing Yuri directly as a > >>>>>> starting > >>>>>>>> point, since I am unfamiliar with anyone else who has been > >> active > >>>>> on > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Wave incubator code. I do understand the general structure of > >>>>> Apache. > >>>>>>>> What > >>>>>>>> I am trying to understand more clearly is whether the Apache > >>>>>> organization > >>>>>>>> as a whole governs the Wave incubator project or whether there > >> is > >>>>> a > >>>>>>>> subset > >>>>>>>> of contributors who govern it. Trademark issues are certainly > >>>>>> understood. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I am glad to contribute requirements specifications and review, > >>>>> though > >>>>>> my > >>>>>>>> coding days are pretty well past. My main concern is that the > >> Wave > >>>>>>>> specification has not progressed under Apache and no longer > >>>>> reflects > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> goals that Wave should be able to undertake in a mobile-first > >>>>> Web. I > >>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>> like to encourage developers to step forward to work towards > >> that > >>>>> goal. > >>>>>>>> To > >>>>>>>> that extend, the "third party" is simply other developers and > >>>>>> enthusiasts > >>>>>>>> who need to communicate with Apache more actively to help > >>>>> determine > >>>>> how > >>>>>>>> best to move forward with Wave. I am taking that step on a > >>>>>> non-commercial > >>>>>>>> basis, in the hopes that we can develop a code base that will > >>>>> result > >>>>> in > >>>>>>>> robust, interconnected commercial and non-commercial products > >> and > >>>>>>>> services. > >>>>>>>> Presumed goodwill should be the order of the day for everyone in > >>>>> this > >>>>>>>> process. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> All the best, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> John Blossom > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> email: [email protected] > >>>>>>>> phone: 203.293.8511 > >>>>>>>> google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:17 AM, Christian Grobmeier > >>>>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hello John, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:37 PM, John Blossom > >>>>> <[email protected] > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> I am a member of WaveWatchers, a group of enthusiasts who > >>>>> remain > >>>>>>> devoted > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> the concept of Wave and its future. I am trying to get a > >> hand > >>>>> as > >>>>> to > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> coordination of Apache Wave today. Yuri Zelikov, I know that > >>>>> you > >>>>>>> remain > >>>>>>>>>> active in the coding of projects in the Incubator community, > >>>>> and > >>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>> you've done a lot through the years to keep Wave-in-a-Box on > >>>>> the > >>>>>> map. > >>>>>>>>> But I > >>>>>>>>>> am not sure of the structure of how your efforts fit into > >> the > >>>>>> bigger > >>>>>>>>>> picture. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> First off, the Apache Software Foundation is a group of > >>>>> volunteers > >>>>>>>>> doing projects together. > >>>>>>>>> At Apache Wave, there are more people to be considered active > >>>>> and > >>>>> so > >>>>>>>>> it would be wrong > >>>>>>>>> to just only ask Yuri. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> For more information on the ASF, please read: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> * www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Please also note that the Incubator is a kind of meta project > >>>>> for > >>>>>>>>> hosting other projects > >>>>>>>>> which want to come to the ASF. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> That said it would be good if you could explain what you mean > >>>>> with > >>>>>>>>> "bigger picture". > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I'd be grateful for an update from any and all concerned. I > >>>>> and > >>>>>>> others > >>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>> interested in re-architecting Wave for more full-blown > >>>>>>> implementation and > >>>>>>>>>> propagation. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Surely, you and your fellows are invited to join the project > >> on > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> dev list and discuss > >>>>>>>>> changes to the Apache Wave protocol. Please note, so far I see > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> term "Apache Wave" > >>>>>>>>> is a trademark of the Apache Software Foundation. Developing > >>>>> another > >>>>>>>>> "Wave" protocol > >>>>>>>>> outside of this project might make lead to trademark confusion > >>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> need to be discussed > >>>>>>>>> more in detail. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> While it is surely to our all benefit to join forces, it needs > >>>>> to > >>>>> be > >>>>>>>>> clear that this project > >>>>>>>>> is not necessary required to implement the specifications of a > >>>>> third > >>>>>>>>> party. This being > >>>>>>>>> said, it is better to discuss your proposed changes here, on > >> the > >>>>>>>>> developer mailing list. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> All the best, > >>>>>>>>> Christian > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks! > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> All the best, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> John Blossom > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> email: [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>> phone: 203.293.8511 > >>>>>>>>>> google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> http://www.grobmeier.de > >>>>>>>>> https://www.timeandbill.de > >> >
