The 28th works for me On Sep 4, 2016 1:40 PM, "Greg Cochard" <greg.coch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The 28th should work for me. I'm definitely for breaking apart the backend > and frontend. A clean separation via an API layer will make iterating and > frontend experimentation much easier. > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2016, 9:44 AM Michael MacFadden < > michael.macfad...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I can participate for either date. But the 28th works better for me, and > > if it works better for Yuri, I would think that would be ideal also. > > > > > > On 9/3/16, 9:29 AM, "Adam John" <a...@sterlingsolved.com> wrote: > > > > @thomas .. I agree that what Pablo has offered is both significant > and > > seems to resolve a number of items that have been established as > > important. > > > > @yuri .. also agree with these points. > > > > @pablo I think we should adjust the date - earlier is probably not a > > good > > idea as it gives most people very short notice about a call on a > "short > > week" in the US, and on the week that many schools start... So, > while > > not > > preferred to push the date out 2 weeks I think it is the better > choice. > > > > Any thoughts on the date change and meeting info below? > > > > Old Date: > > Wednesday September 14 at 10:00am EST > > New Date: > > *Wednesday September 28 at 10:00am EST* > > > > Agenda (WIP): > > * Discuss option to bring swellrt into wave - expected result will be > > "yes" > > or "no" if possible > > * Establish priorities/plan - reference The Wavy Future document > (link > > < > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YnhcupFtReZyq5Y5QheIbYFO2epEh > XGucNZE04r_oA4/edit > > > > > ) > > * Set next steps - including the next full group meeting/discussion > > Please add/change this agenda as you see fit. > > > > Requested attendees: > > 1. Greg Cochard > > 2. Jonathan Leong > > 3. Price Clark > > 4. Thomas Wrobel > > 5. Evan Hughes > > 7. Pablo Ojanguren > > 6. *Everyone on this list!* > > > > Thanks, folks. > > > > AJ > > > > Adam John > > (914) 623-8433 > > Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn < > > http://mradamjohn.com/> > > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > On 1 September 2016 at 17:04, Pablo Ojanguren <pablo...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > I have been developing a fork of Apache Wave for 2 years ( > > swellrt.org) I > > > > can say I have very good knowledge of wave's server and gwt > > client, I > > > have > > > > made changes in almost all the layers of Wave with more or less > > impact. > > > > IMHO to start a wave-like project from scratch is an extremly > > large and > > > > complex project. All we tend to think to build something from > > scratch is > > > > easier than understand something already done. > > > > > > > > > > The only thing I can offer to the community is to help other > > developers > > > to > > > > APIfy the exiting code, removing the GWT UI parts, and transform > > the rest > > > > into a Javascript API in order to use any frontend framework. > > > > > > Thats a huge "only"! > > > > > > > > > > Also I was asked to contribute the whole SwellRT API to Wave, > this > > is > > > > another option I am happy to do if the community finds ok, but > > also I > > > would > > > > need help from more developers. > > > > > > > > > At this point surely this should be seriously considered.? > > > If your willing to do that, maybe the best result for effort is > > > everyone now helping get your work into the main wave project. > > > > > > This seems significant enough to me to even offer wave a stay of > > > execution from Apache, provided we can agree this is the way > forward? > > > Your work seems to solve a few problems slowing down progress, > while > > > simultaneously being also being a fairly big contribution in > itself. > > > > > > > > > Group; may I suggest this option be seriously discussed first > before > > > settling on migration/retirement? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-09-01 8:35 GMT+02:00 Ed - 0x1b, Inc. <w...@0x1b.com>: > > > > > > > >> Adam - I don't know if this will post to the Apache list, but > > > >> ApacheWave will have problems with the use of the word Apache - > > call > > > >> it something different - like StandingWave - you get the idea - > I > > > >> think Github is a great host, especially if you can get the > > > >> <newname>.io domain etc > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Adam John < > > a...@sterlingsolved.com> > > > 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. > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
