The way I look at it is very similar to Lucene - there was an implementation as well as a file protocol/standard, which all started under the same project. From there, multiple language implementations grew using the file standard/protocol.
I also worry that the governance overhead of a separate entity is too complex *at the moment*. In the future this may change. For now I think it's more important to have the protocol implemented, both in WiAB as well as other external project, and to grow the community. /Ian On 11/23/2010 06:59 AM, James Purser wrote: > 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] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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 <http://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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > > [email protected] >> >> <mailto:wave-protocol%[email protected]><wave-protocol%2bunsubscr...@goog >> legroups.com <http://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] <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] >> <mailto: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] <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] >> <mailto: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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > <mailto: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. -- 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.
