Will do in the morning. 12am here. ~Michael
On May 25, 2013, at 9:38 PM, Yuri Z <[email protected]> wrote: > I added some links to the documentation on the wave-protocol site to the > Apache Wave Wiki - > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WAVE/Wave+API+documentation > So, I guess you can start from here. > > @Michael, can you please give Fleeky Flanco the wating rights for Wave Wiki? > > > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Fleeky Flanco <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If someone can point me to the appropriate sources and approriate wiki i >> wouldnt mind cut/paste formatting some data for this project. i dont have >> much time to do any real development on this but i can do that. i really >> want to see this project succeed. >> >> >> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Max pane <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Let me know any on needs Virtual private server for testings >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Michael MacFadden < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 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
