I think a wave would be a better place to collect this information as opposed to deeply within in an existing thread. However, I'm not sure if this will focus the discussion as needed to determine if the protocol should be physically separated or kept in the same location. In either case we will need a subset of the community to focus its attention to maintaining or defining the protocol specification. This is necessary to avoid letting the wiab code define the protocol (in a sense the tail wagging the dog). I don't believe anybody is advocating for that approach so we will maintain a logical separation of the protocol (please correct me if I am wrong).
Perhaps the focus on physical location should be on what makes adoption easier. Is it more confusing to have to go to two sites? Does it provide a clearer separation if code and protocol are maintained on two sites? -anthony On Nov 19, 12:12 pm, Tad Glines <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd be interested in being involved in a protocol working group. > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Michael MacFadden < > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > 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]<wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog > > legroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. -- 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.
