It seems like we don't have a complete consensus on this at this point, although there appears to be a slight preference for keeping the WiaB and protocol separate. Thus far my impression is that most people feel like they SHOULD be managed separately, the main argument against doing so seems to be the overhead. One possible solution is that those the feel strongly about keeping them separate would be responsible for maintaining the protocol site and keeping it up to date.
If that community dwindles, the WIAB community can always suck it back up. Just to get a feel for it, before we make any decisions at all. As a data point, if a Wave Protocol work group was being formed, who would be interested in joining that to specifically work on advancing the protocol. Maybe if we get a feel for the interest level it would help make a decision. ~Michael On Nov 16, 3:47 am, x00 <[email protected]> wrote: > I definitely think a separation is best. The protocol has already > drawn some healthy criticism and it would really help to tap into that > resource. it think that all those involved in waved services should > form a working group. It need to change its name from WFP to something > else. Although "federation" and "protocol" could be in there. > > I also think the perception and reality of independence is really > important. Otherwise it is quasi-state with promise of autonomy. -- 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.
