Thanks for organizing Adam. That date /time is good. Looking forward to meeting everyone.
On Aug 31, 2016 9:59 AM, "Adam John" <[email protected]> wrote: > This is great thinking, Thomas! > > Can we use the Google Doc and add your thoughts there? > Or a copy of it? > I think email is great and all, but a Google Doc is a suitable Wave > substitute for this work since in the end what I think we want here is A > Plan. > > These are all excellent questions and worth proper discussion. > > 100%: small manageable steps. > > Any thoughts on a call / hangout to work things out? > > Requested attendees: > > 1. Greg Cochard > 2. Jonathan Leong > 3. Price Clark > 4. Thomas Wrobel > 5. Evan Hughes > 6. *Everyone on this list!* > > ;) > > Thanks, again... > > AJ > > Adam John > (914) 623-8433 > Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <http://mradamjohn.com/> > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Thomas Wrobel <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > ""an entirely new Wave codebase"" > > > > Or even the first building block that would become that. > > If wave goal is defined as something like, "some sort of open > > federated protocol to selectively share informative securely between > > users" > > > > Would the first steps be too; > > a) define how data is synced between servers.Presumably from > > exchanging the changes. > > i) OT still I assume? > > b) define how data is synced between clients.Presumably from > > exchanging the changes. > > i) OT again? maybe closely related to above? > > c) How to identify users? (existing standard usable here?) > > > > d) Then start implementation of a reference server. > > e) Then start implementation of a completely separated reference client. > > f) THEN work on user interface aspects of the (various!) clients. > > > > This is all just spitballing. Feel free to put yay, nay or "hell no" > > next to any of the above. > > I just think if there is _any_ hope to survive outside apache we need > > small, manageable steps - hopefully each one useful in itself. > > > > -- > > http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. > > http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator. > > > > > > On 31 August 2016 at 13:53, Upayavira <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Adam, > > > > > > Whilst I appreciate that you are trying to help with the ApacheWave > > > repos, I really don't want us to go that way. Wave is already available > > > on Github as https://github.com/apache/incubator-wave. If this project > > > folds, and the code goes to live on on github, it must be called > > > something other than *apache* wave, as to call it Apache XYZ would be a > > > misuse of a trademark. > > > > > > Let's decide whether or not the project continues here, and if it > > > doesn't, then we'll discuss what happens with the various parts of the > > > project once that decision is made. > > > > > > I still think that the best course of action is for a few people to get > > > together and produce an entirely new Wave codebase. We've tried, and > > > failed with the codebase we have. > > > > > > Upayavira > > > > > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, at 08:25 AM, Adam John wrote: > > >> Created a GitHub organization, added each of the available repos: > > >> https://github.com/ApacheWave > > >> > > >> I think I invited everyone on this thread - however there are many > > others > > >> on the list. > > >> All are welcome. > > >> > > >> Loss of Apache incubator status is significant as it means also > > >> organizational loss, tools lost, and would effectively put a nail in > the > > >> coffin for the project. > > >> > > >> WebCMS, Jira, Jenkins, and Travis are all valuable tools, and part of > > >> Incubator status. > > >> > > >> Quality code review (thanks, vega and wisebaldone etc) and an > > established > > >> process for the inclusion of new contributions by people familiar with > > >> existing approaches and the work in progress... all of this is > > >> significant. > > >> > > >> The people on this list - and even the list itself - both a service > and > > >> an > > >> organization that would be a significant loss in any transition... > > >> > > >> I think the safety of the incubator is important, for these reasons > and > > >> more; and there needs to be improved communication, planning and > > >> coordination... here again, just my opinion. > > >> > > >> AJ > > >> > > >> Adam John > > >> (914) 623-8433 > > >> Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn > > >> <http://mradamjohn.com/> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Upayavira <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> > The best future for Wave at Apache would, I think be to start an > > >> > entirely new project at GitHub, and implement a Wave system that > > people > > >> > can actually understand. Once that gains traction, come back to the > > >> > Incubator and ask to resurrect Apache Wave with that new codebase. > > >> > > > >> > The current codebase seems to be simply too complex for people to be > > >> > able to pick up. The idea stands as a good one, but the code is just > > too > > >> > complex. > > >> > > > >> > Upayavira > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, at 09:58 PM, Taylor Fahlman wrote: > > >> > > I've been a reader of this list for a while. I am another one of > the > > >> > > people > > >> > > who would love to contribute, but literally have no idea where to > > start. > > >> > > I > > >> > > really think that if the code was divided a bit more it'd be > easier > > to > > >> > > contribute, because I want to see this project keep going. It > > really does > > >> > > have a lot of potential in the current climate of silo-ed > > communication > > >> > > systems. An easy docker image would really help too. > > >> > > > > >> > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:54 PM Thomas Wrobel < > [email protected] > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > While the code will always be there in some form, is there any > > real > > >> > > > hope outside of Apache though? will it not just fizzle out? > > >> > > > Apache provides somewhat needed pressure, structure and to some > > extent > > >> > > > even prestige. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > While retirement is understandable necessity for things without > > >> > > > progress, its nevertheless sad for a project with such > > potential. Is > > >> > > > it possible to put a call out for developers? a last warning? a > > >> > > > advert? something beyond this list? > > >> > > > I have no idea what form it would take though. I am so ignorant > > with > > >> > > > big projects, both socially and structurally. Theres tools out > > there > > >> > > > supposed to help motivate and organised (www.teamily.com) dont > > know > > >> > > > how effectively they are though. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > It just all seems such a waste for wave to die, its death > marking > > a > > >> > > > little lost hope for the open web to recover some ground from > the > > >> > > > closed hubs that dominate today. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- > > >> > > > http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. > > >> > > > http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story > > generator. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On 30 August 2016 at 21:41, Upayavira <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > Michael, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > As I said earlier in this thread, retirement means the closure > > of an > > >> > > > > "apache" community. The code is already open source. So long > as > > the > > >> > > > > trademark and the Apache License V2 on the code are respected, > > as > > >> > now, > > >> > > > > anyone is free to do what they like with the code. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thus, if someone (or someones) wanted to move it to Github, > > that'd be > > >> > > > > fine. I'm sure Apache wouldn't object to them using the name > > "Wave" > > >> > in > > >> > > > > some form. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Upayavira > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, at 08:54 PM, Michael MacFadden wrote: > > >> > > > >> Yuri, > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> Being a mostly silent participant at this point. I would > tend > > to > > >> > agree > > >> > > > >> with you. I think however, we should provide a “what next” > > >> > option. So > > >> > > > >> for example, people might be more willing to retire the > > project if > > >> > they > > >> > > > >> knew for example we could move to github and still allow > > people to > > >> > > > >> contribute and develop if they see fit. > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> ~Michael > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> On 8/30/16, 11:52 AM, "Yuri Z" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> After some thought I hate to agree, that at current > levels > > of > > >> > > > >> participation > > >> > > > >> the only rational choice is to decide to retire as we are > > just > > >> > > > >> wasting > > >> > > > >> Apache Foundation resources without any real hope of > > graduating. > > >> > > > >> Moreover, there were a few active projects based on > Apache > > Wave > > >> > that > > >> > > > >> felt > > >> > > > >> little motivation to contribute back actively. I think > > this is > > >> > > > >> because they > > >> > > > >> found little need in Apache Foundation resources, while > > >> > contributing > > >> > > > >> back > > >> > > > >> required certain effort to comply with Apache rules. > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> I think we should hold a retirement vote and either > recruit > > >> > > > >> sufficient > > >> > > > >> number of supporters willing and able actively > participate > > >> > > > >> immediately, or > > >> > > > >> retire. > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 9:13 PM Jonathan Leong < > > >> > [email protected] > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > I would hate to see this project retire. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Adam you bring up good points. I can get the ball > > rolling with > > >> > > > the Docker > > >> > > > >> > image. I'll see what I can get done over the next week > > or so. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -Jonathan Leong > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Adam John < > > >> > [email protected]> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > I have to weigh in and say that I agree that the bar > > here > > >> > was > > >> > > > set high > > >> > > > >> > from > > >> > > > >> > > several perspectives. > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > I'm currently evaluating what components of this > > project > > >> > can be > > >> > > > most > > >> > > > >> > useful > > >> > > > >> > > for incorporation into 2 separate projects. If either > > one > > >> > moves > > >> > > > forward > > >> > > > >> > in > > >> > > > >> > > the next 6 months, there will be more developers > > actively > > >> > > > involved here. > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > That said, I've watched some of the transition videos > > from > > >> > > > Google folks > > >> > > > >> > and > > >> > > > >> > > read a lot of the docs, reviewed code and worked on > > >> > > > implementing this > > >> > > > >> > > project for myself. It is daunting and would benefit > > >> > overall > > >> > > > from 2 > > >> > > > >> > > significant - imho critical - updates; > > >> > > > >> > > (1) the Product itself needs real changes - like the > > >> > concept of > > >> > > > bots > > >> > > > >> > needs > > >> > > > >> > > pulled out from core terminology and revamped as a > more > > >> > current > > >> > > > common > > >> > > > >> > > concept / ie agents. There needs to be better > > organization > > >> > of > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > >> > Product > > >> > > > >> > > from concept to contribution. This is not to > diminish > > the > > >> > vast > > >> > > > resources > > >> > > > >> > > present, only to highlight an improvement area. > > >> > > > >> > > (2) the Architecture needs serious review and > revision > > to > > >> > > > figure out how > > >> > > > >> > > best to leverage other projects and allow focus on > the > > >> > specific > > >> > > > benefits > > >> > > > >> > > this project enables. The technology stack overall > > needs > > >> > better > > >> > > > >> > separation > > >> > > > >> > > at least from a newcomers perspective. > > >> > > > >> > > As a third factor, and #1 on my list for adoption is > > rolling > > >> > > > docker > > >> > > > >> > images > > >> > > > >> > > for the project. This is essential in my humble > > opinion to > > >> > > > allow new > > >> > > > >> > > developers to focus on the pieces they feel most > > equipped to > > >> > > > contribute > > >> > > > >> > > comfortably... > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > I don't know how the major changes I am suggesting > get > > >> > > > introduced and > > >> > > > >> > > discussed in much more detail. I'm hoping that > > perhaps I > > >> > lieue > > >> > > > of a > > >> > > > >> > > potentially dismissive email "vote" ... Maybe a > virtual > > >> > > > conference would > > >> > > > >> > be > > >> > > > >> > > of interest? I would hope that the participants of > > such a > > >> > > > convention > > >> > > > >> > would > > >> > > > >> > > be the core of a nascent rebirth. Yes I am > > volunteering to > > >> > > > help take > > >> > > > >> > this > > >> > > > >> > > on if there is interest... > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > Adam John > > >> > > > >> > > (914) 623-8433 > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > On Aug 30, 2016 12:43 PM, "Zachary Yaro" < > > [email protected]> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > I am in a similar boat. I have front-end development > > >> > skills, > > >> > > > but I > > >> > > > >> > > struggle to fully understand the back-end > > functionality or > > >> > begin > > >> > > > >> > separating > > >> > > > >> > > the client from the server. > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > Zachary Yaro > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > On Aug 30, 2016 11:51 AM, "Thomas Wrobel" < > > >> > [email protected]> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > I have tried on 3 separate occasions to understand > > the > > >> > > > server. Its > > >> > > > >> > > > simply not in my skillset and I don't have the time > > to > > >> > learn. > > >> > > > I don't > > >> > > > >> > > > wish to sound arrogant there, theres learning > needed > > for > > >> > > > anything of > > >> > > > >> > > > course. But its too much investment - I want to > > apply > > >> > skills > > >> > > > that I > > >> > > > >> > > > already have. Last time I tried to get into wave > > >> > development > > >> > > > (which > > >> > > > >> > > > was I admit a few years back) it took me 3 days to > > even > > >> > > > compile the > > >> > > > >> > > > server. Which is frustrating for someone that just > > wants > > >> > to > > >> > > > work on a > > >> > > > >> > > > client. > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > So I am certainly not waiting for permission, I am > > waiting > > >> > > > for a > > >> > > > >> > > > prerequisite of a server/client split. I > understand > > I can > > >> > > > neither > > >> > > > >> > > > demand or expect such a thing. Developers on a > > project > > >> > like > > >> > > > this just > > >> > > > >> > > > have to jump in on what they feel like. Nothing can > > >> > really be > > >> > > > expected > > >> > > > >> > > > and I accept that. > > >> > > > >> > > > I simply am informing there's "lesser" developers > > like me > > >> > > > that could > > >> > > > >> > > > work on bits if certain other things happen. > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
