Hey Dan P, You've done a bunch of work with Open Social. I believe it required set up a foundation etc. Would you be able to shed some light on what would be involved if we were to run wave protocol separately?
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Christopher Harvey <[email protected]>wrote: > Reading the way that the proposal has been written ("Apache WIAB" rather > than "Apache Wave"), my current thinking supports keeping the protocol > specification development and discussion quite separate from the WIAB > reference implementation. That is, waveprotocol.org separately distinct > from Apache WIAB (at least on the surface). > > As we know, federation is key and having the spec-development intertwined > with WIAB will make the involvement of other Wave Server providers trickier. > IMHO that argument alone outweighs any downside. > > (Besides my new T-shirt says waveprotocol.org on the back). > > -- > Chris > iotawave.org > Singapore > > -- > 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]<wave-protocol%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > -- David Wang -- 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.
