Im not sure about that really; google genuinely tries to make money by "being the best" and then slapping adverts at the side - they arnt a company that tends to lock its users in. On the other hand "everyone against facebook" is very much in googles interest. Facebook is centralising a lot of things...people use it as an email replacement, play games on it, photo albums etc. Google would benefit from anything slowing that process.
Besides, well, this is all oftopic :P Basically my view is; Doesn't mater what we call our next goal, but if we call it 1.0 it should have federation working to an acceptable level. (as 1.0 is a public perception thing). Shorter term goals that I would like for a major release (aside from bug fixs) is separating the client code out from the server so development can be done on one side more independently and quicker....as well as making it easy for people to use it as a reference for their own clients. On 22 April 2011 12:47, Paul Thomas <dt01pqt...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> While Googles own service was limited to a single domain (for obvious >> business >>reasons) > > i always believed there was low incentive for Google to produce a non > centralised system. They want to do well in social networking after all. Non > centralised Facebook, don't think so. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: James Purser <jamesrpur...@gmail.com> > To: wave-dev@incubator.apache.org > Sent: Fri, 22 April, 2011 11:33:18 > Subject: Re: Wave In A Box 1.0 > > okay a couple of things. > > Firstly, the reason I brought up the idea of a 1.0 release is more to get > people thinking about a roadmap towards it rather than saying we should > release it soon. So if we want to put together a roadmap starting with 0.1 > and working up thats fine as well. So long as we have an agreed goal that's > what we should be looking to. > > Secondly, with regards to federation, it really is part of the core appeal > about Wave. While Googles own service was limited to a single domain (for > obvious business reasons), Apache Wave Servers will be operating in a > distributed world. > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Well, WIAB supports Federation. Maybe the protocol can be improved and some >> federation related bugs should be fixed, but all in all basic federation is >> supported even now. 1.0 release or 0.5 release - is pure semantics. Maybe >> we >> need to define release naming policy... >> I think the whole point of "release" is to announce that we have something >> useful and stable enough. It should not be the complete thing IMHO. >> >> 2011/4/22 Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> >> >> > I'd say Federartion is needed for a 1.0 release as its one of the main >> > "points" of wave existing to start with and 1.0 implies something that >> > is out of beta to me. >> > >> > Attachments and "user profiles" should be much lower priority as they >> > are not core functionality imho. >> > Wave is supposed to be about creating a protocol of which WiaB should >> > be a reference server for, but at the end of the day wiabs existence >> > should be encouraging other clients and servers to be made - for that >> > we need interoperability on both levels. >> > We need a c/s protocol so anyone can work on clients (not just those >> > skilled enough to pick it out of the server code), and we need >> > federation so anyone can make a server. >> > >> > That said, is there a reason why we are jumping to a 1.0 wish list >> > now? I'm not sure of the apache process or if theres a standard to >> > follow here, but I think a 1.0 release should represent something that >> > is at least core functionality complete - and isnt wiab pretty far >> > away from that? >> > >> > Maybe we need some sub-goals first? A 0.5 release could have a list >> > without working federation, for example. >> > [/some cents] >> > >> > ~~~~~~ >> > Reviews of anything, by anyone; >> > www.rateoholic.co.uk >> > Please try out my new site and give feedback :) >> > >> > >> > >> > On 22 April 2011 10:29, Matias Molinas <matias.moli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > I agree with Yuri Z >> > > >> > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > >> I actually don't think that federation should be priority for release >> > 1.0. >> > >> Let's make the service usable on one domain first. The poll at >> > >> http://waveinabox.net/#waveinabox.net/w+GMv_qRbT0zA highlights the >> most >> > >> urgent issues I think. Of course of those we should prefer those that >> > add >> > >> more value per effort. >> > >> So I think the ver. 1.0 should include: >> > >> 1. No critical bugs. >> > >> 2. Basic user profiles (images and nick names). >> > >> 3. Attachments. >> > >> >> > >> 2011/4/22 Zachary “Gamer_Z.” Yaro <zmy...@gmail.com> >> > >> >> > >> > IMHO federation is a must. And obviously bug >> > >> > 252<http://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/issues/detail?id=252 >> >needs >> > >> > to be fixed. >> > >> > --Zachary “Gamer_Z.” Yaro >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 21:47, James Purser <jamesrpur...@gmail.com >> > >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > Okay, we need to start looking at what we think would make a good >> > 1.0 >> > >> > > Release. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > To this end I'm going to start the ball rolling by asking that >> > people >> > >> > > prioritise their particular list of bugs, features and nice to >> haves >> > so >> > >> > > that >> > >> > > we can start discussing what we can fit into 1.0 and what can >> wait. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > I don't think we should start talking time frames until we have an >> > >> agreed >> > >> > > list of 1.0 settings. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > -- >> > >> > > James Purser >> > >> > > Collaborynth >> > >> > > http://collaborynth.com.au >> > >> > > Mob: +61 406 576 553 >> > >> > > Wave: ja...@collaborynth.com.au >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > -- > James Purser > Collaborynth > http://collaborynth.com.au > Mob: +61 406 576 553 > Wave: ja...@collaborynth.com.au >
