If there's anything that I can/should do, just let me know. On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 8:15 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 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 > > >> > > >
