I've already discussed this, but as the manager of a 3rd party server, I support Federation. It can't be missing.
I just wanted this on this thread. -- alci...@eml.cc On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 07:26 +0800, "Doug" <douglas.lin...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > -- http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... Fastmail...
