Point well taken on putting this in a wave. On the other hand google wave will only be around for another month or so. We may have to deal with mailing lists for a little while.
On Nov 19, 9:39 am, antwatkins <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
