I think these are good priorities, as the open protocol is the #1 advantage Wave has over other real-time communication platforms. Rewriting the protocol could even open the door for algorithms developed since the original OT Wave protocol (IIRC, Joseph Gentle suggested as much a few years back).
That said, the original Google Wave took two years to develop with a full dev team and support from a large corporation. I am concerned restarting from zero might not be as feasible with the small team we have here. Zachary Yaro On Aug 31, 2016 09:47, "Thomas Wrobel" <darkfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > ""an entirely new Wave codebase"" > > Or even the first building block that would become that. > If wave goal is defined as something like, "some sort of open > federated protocol to selectively share informative securely between > users" > > Would the first steps be too; > a) define how data is synced between servers.Presumably from > exchanging the changes. > i) OT still I assume? > b) define how data is synced between clients.Presumably from > exchanging the changes. > i) OT again? maybe closely related to above? > c) How to identify users? (existing standard usable here?) > > d) Then start implementation of a reference server. > e) Then start implementation of a completely separated reference client. > f) THEN work on user interface aspects of the (various!) clients. > > This is all just spitballing. Feel free to put yay, nay or "hell no" > next to any of the above. > I just think if there is _any_ hope to survive outside apache we need > small, manageable steps - hopefully each one useful in itself. > > -- > http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. > http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator. > > > On 31 August 2016 at 13:53, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > > Adam, > > > > Whilst I appreciate that you are trying to help with the ApacheWave > > repos, I really don't want us to go that way. Wave is already available > > on Github as https://github.com/apache/incubator-wave. If this project > > folds, and the code goes to live on on github, it must be called > > something other than *apache* wave, as to call it Apache XYZ would be a > > misuse of a trademark. > > > > Let's decide whether or not the project continues here, and if it > > doesn't, then we'll discuss what happens with the various parts of the > > project once that decision is made. > > > > I still think that the best course of action is for a few people to get > > together and produce an entirely new Wave codebase. We've tried, and > > failed with the codebase we have. > > > > Upayavira > > > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, at 08:25 AM, 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 <u...@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 <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. > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
