John, You concerns are valid. I worked directly with the Google team in moving the project to Apache. In fact, I worked with the Google engineers to identify Apache as the target and I helped write the application to become an incubator project. What I can tell you is that there is no one at google shepherding the Wave Protocol. We had talked about moving the wave protocol itself over to Apache or possible over to IETF, or IEEE. Essentially, when Wave moved from Apache to Google, the only people working on the protocol are those working on Apache Wave. I still have administrator access to waveprotocol.org as I was a contributor there as well.
My impression is that if there is a group of people that would work on moving the protocol itself forward, that they would be suited to do that in the Apache Wave community. The idea was always that AFTER a stable reference implementation was build and the protocol was shown to be robust, we would move it to an RFC, W3C, or IEEE standard. However, working on them separately is just not a viable option with the current maturity of the community. We have had an open task to move all of the documentation on wave protocol.org over to Apache, we just haven't executed that yet. My personal opinion is that wave is currently a small community. Trying to manage TWO communities right now is not feasible. As far as the community, several people have been active with the code and several people have been active in other ways. As I mentioned I have access to both communities as an admin, so I might be a good person to help figure this out. Thoughts? ~Michael On 5/25/13 9:16 AM, "John Blossom" <[email protected]> wrote: >Pratik, > >Thank you for your thoughtful comments. These are the sorts of delicate >issues with which I and others have been wrestling. I believe that your >summary is quite good, and I am eager to receive additional points of >view. >Wave concepts are very valid even today, and can take on a new light in an >era of mobile-first Web communications. To me the importance of >establishing the protocol and the federation scheme is critical for the >success of all Wave products - without it, Wave will be less than email, >and therefore never come close to one of its original goals to make email >redundant. More importantly, perhaps, social media platforms and other >collaborative communications tools are increasingly proprietary in nature >- >or at least owned or dominated by large companies. There appears to be a >market gap for vendor-independent collaborative communications that can >scale across any number of up-to-date applications models. > >I am applying the Wave Principles to this discussion, and hope that others >will also. There are other open discussions also, of course, that are more >conceptual and collegial in their nature. > >There is no keeper of Wave at Google - I think that it's very safe to >offer >that definitively. They have products that have used Wave concepts, such >as >Google Drive Realtime API, but the code itself appears to be completely >deprecated and Wave is never mentioned by anyone at Google directly in >public and in private I doubt that it's done either. The lack of activity >on the Google Group speaks for itself - Google is disinvested in Wave >except to borrow concepts from it. > >Your point about the Google code being referred to as canonical yet >pointing to the Apache site for where it's moving underscores the delicate >situation. One could conclude, right or wrong, that Wave is not supported >well in part because it's not entirely definitive that people developing >its code base via Apache can do what they would deem appropriate to create >new iterations of canonical code. I would appreciate clarification on this >point, and I imagine other would, also. > > >All the best, > >John Blossom > >email: [email protected] >phone: 203.293.8511 >google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom > > >On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Pratik Paranjape < >[email protected]> wrote: > >> I had studied this point a while back, and for all practical purposes, I >> had to conclude that the development of wave-protocol is very tightly >>tied >> to the development of the Wave as application. Please consider following >> points: >> >> 1) Community Principles: >> http://www.waveprotocol.org/wave-community-principles >> The guidelines are quite open and discussion is encouraged to be >> public, for all parties involved. >> 2) The wave-protocol site: https://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/ >> Community principles mention google-code site as canonical reference >> for protocol, but the protocol site itself clearly states >> that the project is moving to Apache. No separate wave-protocol >> project mentioned. >> 3) The wave-protocol Google group: >> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/wave-protocol >> The group has no activity since Jan 2011. >> >> It makes sense that the protocol should evolve based on the feedback of >> actual use in production environment, which as it stands right now, most >> likely will be coming through the use of Apache Wave (in a box). >> >> That said, there can be finer legal issues which are not matter of >>public >> documentation. Is there a governing body at Google for wave-protocol? >>Can >> someone from Google comment on it? >> >> /** Start of Opinions from an interested party**/ >> >> On general note, since John initiated a discussion, laying out my 2 >>cents. >> Even though Wave did not go the spectacular path it was originally >>designed >> for, I think both the protocol and the platform (CC-OT, Wave Model and >>the >> Client) have enough merits to make it into several fantastic products >>with >> certain aspects tweaked. >> >> 1. Simplification of the client >> 2. Clear use cases, differentiation on the basis of intended users, e.g. >> a) Technical and non-technical audience >> b) Features that are useful in Wiki vs features that are useful in >> general purpose communication platform parallel to email. (Do you want >>the >> other party to read the email exactly as you are typing it? ) >> 3. Better integration with existing email technologies/servers for >>smoother >> transition from email (through POP, IMAP) >> 4. As John pointed out, some direction towards Mobile adoption >> 5. ... >> >> I am curious to know if anybody else here agrees with the summary above, >> and with the opinion that the Wave needs redirection in order to have >> mainstream success. For a complex project as wave, everything depends on >> the community momentum, and its a chicken-egg problem. >> I understand that some may think its a too big a change to be talking >> about, ( and that coming from a non-contributor). Aim is to just collect >> ideas and to check if there are others who feel the same way. I am >> currently busy on a different start-up project, but have definite plans >>to >> play with Wave in its communication platform form, as I get the chance. >> >> I think to this point, objective has been to get WAIB up and running at >>the >> level of production deployment. Kune.cc has been using wave in >>production, >> if they are willing, their feedback and adoption report can be of great >> help. The current contributors have been doing a great job of getting >>the >> client-server running, taking over from somewhat not-ready source the >> project received. >> >> /** End Opinions **/ >> >> >> Regards, >> Pratik Paranjape. >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Thomas Wrobel <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Theres also the need for a Wave client/server protocol standard (akin >>to >> > what POP3 or IMAP is for email), that seems to be in a limbo for a >>very >> > long time. >> > As someone very eager to work on native mobile clients, this has been >>a >> > hold up. No one can make mobile clients at the moment without also >> running >> > their own server. >> > >> > -Thomas Wrobel >> > (Interested 3rd party..) >> > >> > ~~~ >> > Thomas & Bertines online review show: >> > http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html >> > Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) >> > >> > >> > On 25 May 2013 15:05, Upayavira <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > John, >> > > >> > > Others may clarify more, but it was my understanding that the wave >> > > protocol was not to come over to Apache - Apache only received a >> partial >> > > implementation, Wave in a Box. >> > > >> > > So you'd certainly be right that the protocol itself hasn't moved at >> > > Apache - that hasn't been the remit here. I believe they have a >>google >> > > group for discussing the protocol itself, but not sure how active >>that >> > > list is. >> > > >> > > The Apache Wave project is focused around producing an >>implementation >> of >> > > the protocol. >> > > >> > > HTH! Upayavira >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Sat, May 25, 2013, at 12:31 PM, John Blossom wrote: >> > > > Christian, >> > > > >> > > > Thanks for the information. I was addressing Yuri directly as a >> > starting >> > > > point, since I am unfamiliar with anyone else who has been active >>on >> > the >> > > > Wave incubator code. I do understand the general structure of >>Apache. >> > > > What >> > > > I am trying to understand more clearly is whether the Apache >> > organization >> > > > as a whole governs the Wave incubator project or whether there is >>a >> > > > subset >> > > > of contributors who govern it. Trademark issues are certainly >> > understood. >> > > > >> > > > I am glad to contribute requirements specifications and review, >> though >> > my >> > > > coding days are pretty well past. My main concern is that the Wave >> > > > specification has not progressed under Apache and no longer >>reflects >> > the >> > > > goals that Wave should be able to undertake in a mobile-first >>Web. I >> > > > would >> > > > like to encourage developers to step forward to work towards that >> goal. >> > > > To >> > > > that extend, the "third party" is simply other developers and >> > enthusiasts >> > > > who need to communicate with Apache more actively to help >>determine >> how >> > > > best to move forward with Wave. I am taking that step on a >> > non-commercial >> > > > basis, in the hopes that we can develop a code base that will >>result >> in >> > > > robust, interconnected commercial and non-commercial products and >> > > > services. >> > > > Presumed goodwill should be the order of the day for everyone in >>this >> > > > process. >> > > > >> > > > All the best, >> > > > >> > > > John Blossom >> > > > >> > > > email: [email protected] >> > > > phone: 203.293.8511 >> > > > google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:17 AM, Christian Grobmeier >> > > > <[email protected]>wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hello John, >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:37 PM, John Blossom >><[email protected] >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > I am a member of WaveWatchers, a group of enthusiasts who >>remain >> > > devoted >> > > > > to >> > > > > > the concept of Wave and its future. I am trying to get a hand >>as >> to >> > > the >> > > > > > coordination of Apache Wave today. Yuri Zelikov, I know that >>you >> > > remain >> > > > > > active in the coding of projects in the Incubator community, >>and >> > that >> > > > > > you've done a lot through the years to keep Wave-in-a-Box on >>the >> > map. >> > > > > But I >> > > > > > am not sure of the structure of how your efforts fit into the >> > bigger >> > > > > > picture. >> > > > > >> > > > > First off, the Apache Software Foundation is a group of >>volunteers >> > > > > doing projects together. >> > > > > At Apache Wave, there are more people to be considered active >>and >> so >> > > > > it would be wrong >> > > > > to just only ask Yuri. >> > > > > >> > > > > For more information on the ASF, please read: >> > > > > >> > > > > * www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html >> > > > > >> > > > > Please also note that the Incubator is a kind of meta project >>for >> > > > > hosting other projects >> > > > > which want to come to the ASF. >> > > > > >> > > > > That said it would be good if you could explain what you mean >>with >> > > > > "bigger picture". >> > > > > >> > > > > > I'd be grateful for an update from any and all concerned. I >>and >> > > others >> > > > > are >> > > > > > interested in re-architecting Wave for more full-blown >> > > implementation and >> > > > > > propagation. >> > > > > >> > > > > Surely, you and your fellows are invited to join the project on >>the >> > > > > dev list and discuss >> > > > > changes to the Apache Wave protocol. Please note, so far I see >>the >> > > > > term "Apache Wave" >> > > > > is a trademark of the Apache Software Foundation. Developing >> another >> > > > > "Wave" protocol >> > > > > outside of this project might make lead to trademark confusion >>and >> > > > > need to be discussed >> > > > > more in detail. >> > > > > >> > > > > While it is surely to our all benefit to join forces, it needs >>to >> be >> > > > > clear that this project >> > > > > is not necessary required to implement the specifications of a >> third >> > > > > party. This being >> > > > > said, it is better to discuss your proposed changes here, on the >> > > > > developer mailing list. >> > > > > >> > > > > All the best, >> > > > > Christian >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks! >> > > > > > >> > > > > > All the best, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > John Blossom >> > > > > > >> > > > > > email: [email protected] >> > > > > > phone: 203.293.8511 >> > > > > > google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > http://www.grobmeier.de >> > > > > https://www.timeandbill.de >> > > > > >> > > >> > >>
