Adam, Thanks. I would love to brain stole with you all. .
~Michael > On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:58 AM, Adam John <a...@sterlingsolved.com> wrote: > > This is great thinking, Thomas! > > Can we use the Google Doc and add your thoughts there? > Or a copy of it? > I think email is great and all, but a Google Doc is a suitable Wave > substitute for this work since in the end what I think we want here is A > Plan. > > These are all excellent questions and worth proper discussion. > > 100%: small manageable steps. > > Any thoughts on a call / hangout to work things out? > > Requested attendees: > > 1. Greg Cochard > 2. Jonathan Leong > 3. Price Clark > 4. Thomas Wrobel > 5. Evan Hughes > 6. *Everyone on this list!* > > ;) > > Thanks, again... > > AJ > > Adam John > (914) 623-8433 > Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <http://mradamjohn.com/> > >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:46 AM, 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. >>
