Angus, I can take care of the notice.
~Michael On May 25, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Angus Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>
