All, During the Wave Summit we discussed several topics. The possible move of the WAIB project to apache incubator has been covered elsewhere:
http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol/browse_thread/thread/5363c635e8e950fc However, in relation to the move to apache, the question of the Wave Protocol vs the implementation that is Wave In A Box was raised. Typically apache projects are code oriented. Apache does not typically act as a standards bodies. This is bit of a gray area since new projects applications / utilities often include XML / SQL schemas, APIs, and messaging formats that other entities would need to adopt to work with those components. These could be considered pseudo standards; however, they typically dicate how to use or integrate with the tool in question. They aren't really defining a public standard that everyone should adopt. When we were initially discussing the the move to Apache, we assumed that both the protocol and the implementation would both transition to apache. All content would then be migrate from waveprotocol.org to the new apache project. However it was brought up that another option would be to leave all items relating to protocol development on waveprotocol.org; only the Wave in a Box project (code, docs, wiki, etc) would move to apache. The gist being that WIAB becomes the reference implementation for the protocol, but that the two may indeed be managed differently. waveprotocol.org could become the public body responsible for working on the protocol. Open discussion and changes to the protocol would happen there. There would be a process for planning and approving revisions to the protocol. Once a revision is published, the WIAB project would then update its codebase to maintain compliance. A few benefits to this approach are: - It fosters discipline on managing the protocol. Developers can't simply make de facto changes to the protocol just by modifying the WIAB code. - It is possible that those that theorize about the protocol and those that develop the WIAB codebase might not be the same group of people (right now their is obviously a large if not total overlap). - It sets us up to move the protocol to a formal standards body later on if we see fit. - It gives the impression that we are drinking our own cool aid, rather than running around with scissors. I would like to open discussion on if this is what we want to do, or if we want to manage this all in one spot. There are pros and cons to each approach. Sincere Regards, Michael -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
