Re: Invitation to google wave
> To make things more clear, my main interest with Wave in connection with > LyX is that I think there are interesting things in Wave as a concept > which we eventually could incorporate into LyX. (I don't advocate us using > Wave at this time for developer communication, maybe I never will) > > Now, in order for other LyX developers to have the opportunity to see > what's possible in Wave, you need an account, for which you need an > invite. Much more interesting is the open source solution EtherPad http://code.google.com/p/etherpad/ http://etherpad.com/ep/blog/posts/etherpad-open-source-release Peter
Re: Invitation to google wave
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Pavel Sanda wrote: To make things more clear, my main interest with Wave in connection with LyX is that I think there are interesting things in Wave as a concept which we eventually could incorporate into LyX. (I don't advocate us using Wave at this time for developer communication, maybe I never will) Now, in order for other LyX developers to have the opportunity to see what's possible in Wave, you need an account, for which you need an invite. Christian Ridderström wrote: feeling for how easy, or difficult, it is to work on one document when there are multiple cursors moving around on the screen. In my opinion i think that all people around agree that having this in lyx would be fine, we dont need google wave to tell us - this idea is around for a long time. the problem is - who is going to code it? :) Oh, I was under the impression that not everyone thought it would actually work in practice to have several people editing the same piece of text simultaneously. So I thought the UI experience would be an illuminating experience. In addition, as the mechanisms in wave are documented (the APIs), it might save us some effort in coming up with clever algorithms. PS. There is one use case for wave which we would benefit from. If we are to decide on a new LyX meeting, a wave is _perfect_ for discussing where to hold it, and who is coming and all those details. sorry to be moron, but i fail to see in what sense our mailing list+wiki is insufficient. I like wikis (obviously!), but they do have some drawbacks compared to a wave. Please bear with me when I explain an advantage with a wave, I'll later talk about using that concept in LyX. In the case of arranging a meeting, we discuss issues while simultaneously recording what we have agreed upon. To give a specific case, consider the discussions about when to hold the meeting, while keeping track of who is able/willing to attend at that point. We today do this using the wiki + a mailing list, where we eventually copy the current table of dates/participants from the wiki into multiple posts on the mailing lists, where the discussion takes place. This is how it works in practice today. A minor issue is the extra work involved in copy&paste, but a larger drawack is that the copied table of dates/participants in the mailing list won't update as people make modifications to the table in the wiki. If a wave had been used, the discussion would take place very close to the table of dates/participants, which is updated in real time. We could of course have kept all of our discussions inside the wiki and obtained more or less the same advantages, but as I think you may have noticed, it's not that fun to do conversations in a wiki. (It doesn't have nice automatic mechanisms to shows and record time stamps of when you said something, or who said it etc). Anyway, the above example is an example of conversations taking place inside the document that records the results. Furthermore, the conversations are likely to pertain to the results, so they might be worthwhile to be able to restore with a reasonable effort. Actually, I think it could be very valuable to have document specific discussions recorded and kept together with the actual document. (It would also be practical while creating the document, but that's separate). There is actually already almost a LyX equivalent which we don't have in our wiki (a "fix" could probably be added to the wiki). Let's say you and I jointly work on a document that we shuffle back and forth. Then say that I've changed a paragraph but I've got some question regarding my change. What I could do then is to add a LyX note, in which I pose my question or perhaps comment on why I did the change. You could then "reply" to my comment in the note by adding a new note. In practice this would be minor conversation regarding a very specific part of the document, taking place in the document. The advantage I see for certaind kinds of discussions is that if the document is version controlled, the discussion will also have been kept in the VCS. This could be important if the discussion for instance concerned design decisions that you later will wonder about. To make conversation nicer, we could have a special kind of inset (which can be inset into itself), that automatically records the time at which it was added, by whom, and when the blip was last modified. All to make it more like minor messages/statements from a person. moreover - i suspect that you will have hard time to convince many of us, why should we should drop beautiful combination of terminal+mutt+vim in sake of some web oriented environment :) Ah, but there is already a reference implementation that uses an interface that is just like pine/alpine :-) best regards /Christian -- Christian Ridderström +46 70 687 39 44
Re: Invitation to google wave
>> Now, if this had been a wave conversation, I could just have edited my >> initial text, making it clear what I meant. Which would mean that >> other readers of the thread wouldn't have to be confused. > > Rewriting history is much less funny than just misunderstanding each others > IMO. I'm sure we can still manage to misunderstand each other... :-) And with the "playback" functionality (like an animation of how the wave has been edited), your mistakes will be availble so that you can be teased. Good night, Christian
Re: Invitation to google wave
Le 8 déc. 09 à 22:50, Christian Ridderström a écrit : It's funny, but the above is an example of where a wave conversation would have been better than e-mail. I wrote '... why I passed on invitations', which is unfortunately unclear and a poor choice of words. I meant to say that I "passed out invitations", but my phrasing could mean I gave the invitations a pass... Similarly, I don't know if Jean-Marc is glad I passed out the invitations, or if he's glad he gave the invitation a pass as he is too busy. I am glad I received it. Now, if this had been a wave conversation, I could just have edited my initial text, making it clear what I meant. Which would mean that other readers of the thread wouldn't have to be confused. Rewriting history is much less funny than just misunderstanding each others IMO. JMarc
Re: Invitation to google wave
2009/12/8 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes : > Le 8 déc. 09 à 21:10, Christian Ridderström a écrit : >> >> (my apologies for posting part of your reply to the list, but I think >> it might good if I explain in general why I passed on invitations) > > I think passing the invitation was a good idea. Personally, I am running > out of time for experiments... > > JMarc It's funny, but the above is an example of where a wave conversation would have been better than e-mail. I wrote '... why I passed on invitations', which is unfortunately unclear and a poor choice of words. I meant to say that I "passed out invitations", but my phrasing could mean I gave the invitations a pass... Similarly, I don't know if Jean-Marc is glad I passed out the invitations, or if he's glad he gave the invitation a pass as he is too busy. Now, if this had been a wave conversation, I could just have edited my initial text, making it clear what I meant. Which would mean that other readers of the thread wouldn't have to be confused. cheers, Christian
Re: Invitation to google wave
Le 8 déc. 09 à 21:10, Christian Ridderström a écrit : (my apologies for posting part of your reply to the list, but I think it might good if I explain in general why I passed on invitations) I think passing the invitation was a good idea. Personally, I am running out of time for experiments... JMarc
Re: Invitation to google wave
Christian Ridderström wrote: > feeling for how easy, or difficult, it is to work on one document when > there are multiple cursors moving around on the screen. In my opinion i think that all people around agree that having this in lyx would be fine, we dont need google wave to tell us - this idea is around for a long time. the problem is - who is going to code it? :) > PS. There is one use case for wave which we would benefit from. If we > are to decide on a new LyX meeting, a wave is _perfect_ for discussing > where to hold it, and who is coming and all those details. sorry to be moron, but i fail to see in what sense our mailing list+wiki is insufficient. moreover - i suspect that you will have hard time to convince many of us, why should we should drop beautiful combination of terminal+mutt+vim in sake of some web oriented environment :) pavel
Re: Invitation to google wave
Hi Uwe, (my apologies for posting part of your reply to the list, but I think it might good if I explain in general why I passed on invitations) >> Use it or not as you please. My main motivation for giving you the >> invite is that the collaborative aspects with using google wave is >> something I think we in the long run should see what could be useful >> for LyX. > > It seems that you are a so-called "early adopter". Google wave is just > another hype in my opinion. I certainly am an early adopter in the sense that I started with LyX when it was 0.10, and I haven't regretted that. I also started with wikis very early on, which I haven't regretted either. On the other hand, I do try to stay away from facebook and twitter... :-) I've used wave some, at least enough to consider it way more than just hype and I hope LyX can learn from some of the solutions in wave - more on that later. As for wave, I do expect it to subsume the role of e-mail within a few years, initially by acting in parallel, and interoperating, with regular e-mail, but eventually I expect people basically saying that regular e-mail sucks in comparsion with e-mail, primarily for some specific use cases that more often occur in business situations. Having said that, I don't t necessarily expect it to be Google's implemenation that wins in the end, in fact, it might not be until Microsoft implements their own equivalent technology that it takes becomes mainstream. > Imagine that a company names "Where 2 Tech" had > launched Wave, would you then also participate in a beta test program as you > do now? I probably wouldn't have watched the 90 minute "introduction video" if it had been some other company. Then again, I've been interested in collaboration tools since 2002 or so, so I don't really know. However, if I had watched the video i would have tried the tool. Then again, I doubt another company would have gone for the "federation approach" - without that wave won't fly. Any serious (business) use of this technology will only work once "I" am able to run my own server. Some of you might wonder what 'federation approach' means, and simply put it's that the wave protocol is open and that a reference implementation of server and client software will be available for everyone. The comparison is with e-mail, where there are many servers and clients on the the internet that can communicate with each other. > Wave might be useful for companies where > everybody is at least there for 8 hours. But in an open source project, many > of us are only online for a few hours per week because LyX is our hobby not > our work. I don't think the LyX project, or us developers, will have a direct use of Wave at this point in time. That is simly way too soon at this point in time. It certainly won't completely replace e-mails / news for a long while yet. As for version control, that's definitely much better for dealing with documents. I don't even expect waves to even being able to compete with wikis within a year or so. (Maintaining FAQs could be an exception though). There is single major reason for why I wanted other LyXers to see wave, and that is to get a feeling for how the user interface can work when there are multiple authors working on the same document. To get a feeling for how easy, or difficult, it is to work on one document when there are multiple cursors moving around on the screen. In my opinion that seems to work quite well as a concept for a user interface (in practice it's sometimes a bit slow in the wave implemenation). So I am happy if you will just try wave so much so that you try editing a wave while other users are simultaneously editing the same wave. Then think about how this kind of user interaction would work if it was instead done in LyX. Best regards, Christian PS. There is one use case for wave which we would benefit from. If we are to decide on a new LyX meeting, a wave is _perfect_ for discussing where to hold it, and who is coming and all those details.
