The Wave In A Box project is essentially a reference project for the protocols themselves.
I think the current model of two sites one organisation is the best way forward. James On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Upayavira <[email protected]> wrote: > The ASF has experience with this - and an existing US based model, that > does not require physical meetings. Sure, setting up such a body is not > something to do in an evening. > > I guess what I'm saying is that sure, let the protocol spec go with the > WIAB RI into the incubator, but if others are implementing the spec too, at > some point it will need to be somewhere more independent. > > Just musing about the possibility of an Apache style body, and hoping that > someone will pick up the idea and run with it :-) > > Upayavira > > On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:21 +0100, "Torben Weis" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi, > > as one of the initial KDE members, I know about the difficulties of setting > up KDE e.V. (the legal organization behind KDE). The real problem was the > (german) tax office. Building a non-profit organization and getting tax > exemption is difficult. Furthermore, by law this legal body has to conduct > physical meetings regularily, it has to elect a president and treasurer etc. > pp.. It might be slightly better in the US, but whenever one does intend to > not pay taxes, it will become difficult - everywhere. > > Do we need to emphasize that we intend to develop "standards"? Currently > these are just "specification" documents and I believe that every self > respecting software product sports some specs. In the very moment when we > upgrade the specs to standards, we have to move out of the Apache incubator > project of course. > > I just fear that we cannot setup some standards body quickly enough. This > takes time and needs care. Let's call it specs instead of standards and spin > it off later (unless somebody volunteers to tackle all the legal tax effort > quickly). > > Torben > > 2010/11/23 Upayavira <[email protected]> > > By moving WIAB to Apache, you are solving the governance issue with > regard to the RI, but not those of the protocol itself. > > I am personally open to the possibility of the protocol joining the > incubator as a temporary measure, but I do think it would be a harder > proposal to get through, as Apache is coscious that it is not a > standards body. > > One thing I would certainly like to see explored, is what would it me > like to establish a new Foundation, established along lines similar to > Apache (consensus based and meritocratic), who's aims are to support > the creation of open specifications. Could this be something folks > here could (eventually) participate in? > > Upayavira > > On Nov 20, 3:21 pm, Torben Weis <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree that spec and implementation should be "independent" eventually. > > > > There are two more practical things worth considering IMHO: > > a) If specs are not part of the Apache project, we need to define our own > > governance rules or copy them which will cost time and effort > > b) There is a risk that specs and implementation differ too much because > the > > communities are too disjoint. > > > > From a practical perspective I would like to keep the specs together with > > WiaB for some time. Right now this will save us some additional overhead > and > > it keeps the community together. WiaB could decide to check every 6 > months > > whether time has come to spin off the specs in their own project. > > > > Finally, editing a spec in a Wiki is a no go. I would like to see a > changes > > list to understand what happens to the protocol specs. > > > > Greetings > > Torben > > > > 2010/11/20 Chris Harvey <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Keeping two sites: Wave Protocol and RI development makes sense to me. > > > > > Count me in to the protocol working group > > > > > -- > > > 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]> > <wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog legroups.com> > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > > > > -- > > --------------------------- > > Prof. Torben Weis > > Universitaet Duisburg-Essen > > [email protected] > > > -- > 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. > > > > > -- > --------------------------- > Prof. Torben Weis > Universitaet Duisburg-Essen > [email protected] > > > -- > 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. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
