As I said earlier, we're working towards moving all the documentation onto the apache wave wiki, so it's all in one place, as it's currently scattered over 3 or 4 sites. I suggest we put a notice up on the wave-protocol mailing list that disucssion is taking place on this mailing list.
Thanks Angus Turner [email protected] On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:00 AM, John Blossom <[email protected]> wrote: > Michael, > > I read this one first, but respond to it secondly. > > I would encourage you to proceed with the migration. If Google support is > deprecated, then we need to make that completely unambiguous for anyone > trying to learn about our efforts. I am excited that there is the potential > to move forward with the protocol via the Apache community, which I am sure > will welcome additional contributors. > > All the best, > > John Blossom > > email: [email protected] > phone: 203.293.8511 > google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom > > > > > On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Michael MacFadden < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >
