As I said, the principal requirement is that decisions are asyncronous, and recorded.
At the moment, that means it must happen on a mailing list. Apache can host an instance of wave, and may be open to the use of an archived wave for discussion, but I would suggest that that should be something for discussion during incubation. Upayavira On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 01:57 -0800, "Vega" <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the answers. > I think this discussion is very helpful for someone who wants to > understand the pros and cons of joining Apache. > Basically, the only important disadvantage is the Apache requirement > to hold all discussions and votes on the mailing lists. Is it possible > to check if Apache would allow us to use wiab dog food instance for > this purpose? > Regarding feasibility of dog food instance - I don't think that group > functionality is required, something like Forumbotty robot that was > used by the Wave API team is sufficient. > On Dec 2, 1:45 am, "Upayavira" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Interesting point in #4. The principal qualities that a mailing list has > > that make it suitable for the task are (a) archived and (b) > > asynchronous. > > > > That is, the decisions that are made are archived for perpituity, and > > participants do not need to be online concurrently to engage in the > > conversation (e.g. allowing for timezone differences). > > > > In this case, mailing lists are being compared to the likes of private > > conversations, face to face meetings and IRC, which fail on one or more > > of the above. > > > > It seems that Wave could well meet both criteria, and thus it is > > conceivable that Wave could be accepted as a valid context for decision > > making at Apache. > > > > As to running an instance, Apache can make (virtual) hardware available > > to projects to run their own dogfood - so running an instance is > > certainly possible. > > > > Another benefit that wasn't listed was that of becoming a part of a > > larger software development community that shares a common approach. > > This can bring many intangible benefits (e.g. my career, for one, would > > be nothing of what it is now without my Apache connections). > > > > Upayavira > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 10:50 -0800, "Vega" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks for the answer. > > > So, if I understand it right, Wave in a Box potentially gets: > > > 1) Ability to receive donations - I am not sure it is really important > > > to the project. > > > 2) Legal protection - I have no clue about possible risks here. The > > > project is distributed under Apache 2.0 license, isn't it enough to > > > protect it? > > > 3) Copyright protection - Again no clue how important it is to the > > > project. Seems to me not really important. > > > 4)Hardware infrastructure - in fact the Apache infrastructure seems to > > > be inferior to current Wiab setup. Moreover, if I understand it right, > > > they insist that all communication and decision making should be done > > > with the mail lists - which prevents us from hosting dog food server > > > for the about needs. I think it is very severe limitations. Also svn > > > is inferior to mercurial. In fact I think that point (4) is in fact > > > disadvantage. > > > 5)The Apache brand name is nice, however Wave is already a strong > > > brand name in itself. > > > > > So to summarize, it seems like point (4) poses severe immediate limits > > > on the project, while the benefits are not clear and not immediate. > > > Also, I don't understand what's the hurry to join the Apache incubator > > > right now. > > > The wave team has a very demanding goal - to have a functional version > > > working out out the box - as soon as possible, and it seems to me that > > > working on joining Apache now, only distracts us from working toward > > > reaching the main goal. > > > > > On Dec 1, 6:58 pm, Michael MacFadden <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > There are several benefits to the Apache Organization, I can list a > > > > few here: > > > > > > 1) The Apache Software Foundation is an established non-profit 501(c) > > > > (3) corporation. As such it can provide a legal entity that can > > > > facilitate tax deductible financial contributions to a project. Right > > > > now with the project simply hosted at Google Code, there would be no > > > > real way for us to accept donations. > > > > > > 2) They protect the contributors from legal suits. Basically, if some > > > > one uses wave and incurs some damages, they can sue apache and the > > > > individual contributors / committers are legally shielded from that > > > > suit. > > > > > > 3) Apache will protect its brand and enforce the license. Again if > > > > some one doesn't play by the copyright rules governing the open source > > > > project Apache can take legal action on the projects behalf. > > > > > > 4) Apache has hardware infrastructure like project web site hosting, > > > > issue tracking, wikis, mailing lists, etc as well as a large mirrored > > > > content distribution network. > > > > > > 5) The Apache Brand name is strong, we will benefit from being > > > > associated with them. If we graduate to a Top Level Project, then it > > > > says to the rest of the world that we are at a certain maturity. > > > > > > This is not an inclusive list, but some of the major benefits. > > > > > > As for the risks, you do give up some control over how the project is > > > > governed. Apache runs projects as a meritocracy / democracy. There > > > > is no hierarchy of project owners and various levels of committers. > > > > This it self isn't bad or good, just pointing out that they have rules > > > > that projects have to play by. I personally like how they do things, > > > > but the point is that we have to bend to their will somewhat. Another > > > > related risks is we are somewhat beholden to their infrastructure. So > > > > for example they use Subversion for source control. Again we have to > > > > just go with the flow. We MUST use the Apache license for the code, > > > > and we can't ever "take the code back". Of course with the apache > > > > license if we wanted to we could always fork the project and move it > > > > somewhere else, but we can't ever revoke the license form apache. > > > > > > Basically, the idea here is that we are joining a community and by > > > > doing so are agreeing to transform our project to fit their existing > > > > model. Of course when we are an active member of that community we > > > > will get a voice in how the larger community operates. > > > > > > As for the alternatives, we could just leave the project where it is > > > > at google code, or move to something like source forge. The down side > > > > here is we don't get the legal or organizational protections that > > > > apache provides, nor do we get the brand name benefits. > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > On Dec 1, 2:59 am, Vega <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I was closely following the discussion regarding wave in a box product > > > > > joining Apache. However, I couldn't see any real benefits to join > > > > > besides having "Apache" before the "Wave". I guess the "pros and cons" > > > > > discussions were held at the summit, but I couldn't access them. > > > > > I am not against the move, it's just I am not sure I understand the > > > > > consequences and the price. > > > > > So > > > > > 1. What are potential benefits? Are there things that Apache can > > > > > provide that will make the work of wane in a box developers easier? > > > > > 2. What are possible risks? I guess everything comes at price and > > > > > joining Apache will impose certain restrictions. What are them? > > > > > 3. Are there some alternatives? Maybe there are better ways to achieve > > > > > the same goal. > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > -- > > > 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. > -- 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.
