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 <darkfl...@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 <u...@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" <vega...@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.le...@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 <a...@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" <zmy...@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" <darkfl...@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. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >
