I support this.

Without federation wave is just a wiki; it can't be missing from 1.0.

~
Doug.

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Reply via email to