I haven't been actively involved in development of the project, but I have studied it extensively in past, including the code, and I enjoy answering new people coming to wave whenever I can. Having another pressing project in hands close to release, I am yet not able to contribute code wise, but I will try to take up on John's point and take discussion forward. I hope its acceptable as Christian so elegantly mentioned different roles people can take on through Apache model. :) Opinions, but may help.
Please see inline On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:45 PM, John Blossom <jblos...@gmail.com> wrote: > Interesting remarks so far from everyone, thanks very much, keep them > coming. I see others coming in. > > Here are some thoughts regarding your thoughts: > > - There seems to be a commitment to get a release out. If that's a > near-term objective, then good, let's allow people to have pride in their > work and to have a complete Wave 1.0 kit. If it's a "someday" goal, then > I'd suggest that we need to think about how best we can get resources to > move more towards the vision that I have outlined in my presentation deck, > assuming that there's consensus that it be refined into a concrete roadmap > and powerful pitch deck. My personal concern at this point is not "ship > it." My personal concern is to make Wave awesome and powerful as soon as > possible using every resource available, using those currently committed > and those yet to be committed. > A release has been an objective since a long time now and we are on the verge of making one, with all the licenses updated and dependencies solved (am I right?) thanks to efforts from current contributors. As I have gathered from the mailing list discussion, a release is also an important requirement in Apache's project model, and it will only help on all counts, including developer moral. That said, it should not affect at all inversely if we continue discussing a direction and new ideas while the release is being done. We can work on an agreeable road-map and start working on it for subsequent releases. As I recall from messages I read only couple of days back, most were thinking of giving this release a minor version number only considering the low maturity of the code. > > - Resources are an issue. So is funding, as a corollary. Both respond to > the right vision for the marketplace. I feel pretty confident that with > some refinement, what is captured in the presentation is funding-worthy and > will attract funding. This point is true in any context, and encouraging if we can take extra help for Wave, wouldn't hurt. As long as all the stakeholders agree to protect the project and it's independence (within Apache model), funding may help to get the momentum going. However, I am concerned about branding issues and > program management - people putting their money down will want effective > results in a meaningful timeframe, because competitive pressures don't > sleep. > I think this is to be resolved by John and senior members from Apache, discussing the concrete points John may have concerns about. If required and allowed by legal issues, semi-involved people like me can chime in for thoughts. We may get exact discussion going if John list outs exact ideas and concerns he has about branding (?) Again, this seems like a regulation choice, and I understand Apache board members will be authorities, I am just trying to chip in for a direction. > > - I am willing to put my reputation and efforts into being a committer for > Apache Wave, if a) there is a strong consensus that the presentation is the > basis for forming an effective short-term and long-term roadmap for Wave, Having read the presentation, even though I know its largely in the direction to take, there may be some points of concerns. Mostly technical, e.g. completely giving up on code, peer-to-peer clients may not even be technically feasible or practical. However, even the client-server model gives ample possibilities for very cool communication platform and will be nothing less than any peer-to-peer app experience. There may be other points. In short, Presentation in general is appealing, but specifics may need changing for different reasons. > b) my role as an initial fund-raiser, marketer, product manager and brand > developer as a committer is acceptable, c) if we can get agreement on the > right branding and brand management that will be appropriate for Wave being > successful commercially, and Again, will probably depend on what specifics John has in mind about branding and marketing, and how it fits within Apache framework of doing things, matter for concrete points and senior Apache members involvement. > d) there is agreement that this will require > not just some initial code funding but a framework that will ensure some > level of ongoing support for committers. I am actually of the belief that if a product solves real problems, and is fun for developers to work on, it will drive itself. So many big open sources projects have taken momentum without initial funding. But then again, funding may help to catalyze the process, especially in the sector of branding and marketing. I think complexity has been the main hurdle working against Wave, for both users and developers. If we can simplify things and present a clear picture of what Wave is meant to be and why it will be better than email or other current technology, we will have the momentum. This does not mean I have anything against funding, but that there is something more effective playing part here. If we can overcome this point, Wave should be able to gain momentum without continuous commercial efforts. I believe that is the right model for open source projects. Now, if we have funding in addition to that, its icing on the cake. :) > > - I am not a coder of any substance anymore, but I designed, coded and > managed coders on Unix-based systems for realtime applications in the > financial industry and have developed and hacked in many Web sites as well > as little projects like monkeying around with Arduino. I have spent most of > my career in strategic marketing and product management for content and > technology products such as Wave. I have spoken globally on visionary > content and technology topics, I have a very good base of social media > followers, I have been quoted in the mainstream press often and I have > appeared on television news shows. Often technology people put me in the > non-tech box and often non-tech people put me in the tech box. I don't > care. I have always worked at the intersection of content, technology and > people, so as long as the right thing gets done, you can call me whatever > you want. That's what you'd get, no more, no less. > I am personally delighted to have heard from you on the mailing list John, and its always fun to hear new ideas, views from people have been actively and passionately doing things to move technology forward. Like you said yourself, we all are interested in seeing cool places wave can go, and that common interest is enough reason to be joining forces. Even though I haven't been participating much, its been fun to keep an eye on this mailing list to see where wave is going, also learning about more about Apache in the process. - I want Wave to succeed. You want Wave to succeed. Others want Wave to > succeed, and a growing number are taking interest in what has been started > in this process by me and others. That's what branding, funding, committers > and cooperation are all about - success. Sometimes that means that > everyone, including me, puts their own investment aside and tries to do the > right thing. That's a part of the ASF spirit, I know. But I don't want > success by accident. I want success by design. > > So yes, we need committers. For what? > > Solve for x. > > Thanks, > > John Blossom > > True that. Hopefully we can all take up on this initiative and take it to a point where we move more aggressively forward gathering more hands to help us. Warm Regards, Pratik Paranjape. > > On May 30, 2013 5:55 AM, "Christian Grobmeier" <grobme...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Bruno Gonzalez <sten...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I agree, IMO efforts should be directed at getting more man power. > Sadly, > > > ideas are mostly useless if there's no hands that will transform them > > into > > > actual code. I don't know... a solid business plan for a kickstarter, > > some > > > advertising magic that will attract developers to devote their time for > > > free, convince the public to donate copious amounts of money to the > > project > > > (this was attempted by the now-offline fundwiab > > > <http://www.fundwiab.com/> initiative, > > > but it only managed to collect maybe 20 hours worth of developer time; > > too > > > little to do any medium sized task), etc. > > > > As Upayavira mentioned, getting a release out is crucial - its an > > important psychological hurdle. Having a release is also motivating > > for others to maybe contribute. > > > > That said, one needs to deal with the man power a project has. There > > is now a John around with lot of ideas. While some might argue you > > need more coders, why are you not building up some marketing-fu > > together with John? He seems to be a good writer and very passionate. > > Maybe you folks should set up a blog (blogs.apache.org?), utilize G+ > > and Twitter. > > > > As reminder: in ASF world, not only people who write code can become a > > project committer. Everybody who is "committed to the project" and > > does things, is able to become a committer. This includes marketing > > work, blog posting, helping with translations, answering user > > questions on mailing lists etc.. In Apache OpenOffice, a few people do > > not know what a shell is and have heard of Java just from the press. > > But they do an incredible job with helping users, writing docs, > > testing and contributing to ideas. Hence, they become committers too. > > > > What I want to say: yes, you need more coders. But don't miss a chance > > to get people involved who are not coding. They might become very > > valuable community members + committers with the tons of other tasks > > necessary with Wave. > > > > Cheers > > Christian > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Angus Turner <angusisf...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Nothing about it not being appropriate, everything about having the > man > > >> power. Right now it's hard enough to maintain the code we've got. > > >> > > >> I personally would rather wave was written in a 'nice' language like > JS > > or > > >> Python, but right now it's not worth the effort. > > >> > > >> Thanks > > >> Angus Turner > > >> angusisf...@gmail.com > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:53 PM, John Blossom <jblos...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hello, > > >> > > > >> > Looking through some documentation on Wave-derived products, I am > > seeing > > >> > that there is some good use of Node.JS coding for server-side > > functions. > > >> > Why would it not be appropriate to replace some or all of the > > demo-model > > >> > code from Google on the server side with a light and powerful > language > > >> such > > >> > as this? > > >> > > > >> > Good analysis of Node performance at: > > http://nodejs.org/jsconf2010.pdf > > >> > > > >> > Thanks for your feedback, > > >> > > > >> > John > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Saludos, > > > Bruno González > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com > > > http://www.stenyak.com > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.grobmeier.de > > https://www.timeandbill.de > > >
