Hi all, Right now, I have this https://github.com/pires/wave
I'll be merging latest changes during the day, but this is enough for you to fiddle with. Cheers, PP On May 30, 2013, at 5:51 PM, John Blossom <[email protected]> wrote: > PP, > > Great comments, I agree that brilliance without maintainability can be > risky. We need both. > > Here's hoping that we can set the right BHAGs with the right metrics and > messaging that will excite the world as much as we're excited. One step at > a time, but I think that we're getting there. > > Many thanks, > > John > On May 30, 2013 11:59 AM, "Paulo Pires" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> See inline. >> >> Cheers, >> PP >> >> On May 30, 2013, at 4:26 PM, Michael MacFadden < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> In my humble opinion we need: >>> >>> 1) A vision and marketing to attract people. It's hard to attract >> coders >>> if they don't know what they are coding. >> >> Forget node.js or any other "world-changer-wannabe" frameworks. As Michael >> states, most developers don't understand (or are even scared of) this >> project architecture/structure. Fixing this would be a great start! >> >>> 2) We need a road map. >> >> I'd start with reorganizing code and simplifying the learning-curve for >> developers. Without developers, there's no product! >> >>> 3) We need a design. >> >> Important in the long-term. >> >>> 4) Then we need coders. >> >> Yes, yes, yes! >> >>> >>> Mainly we need coders to help with the release. Potentially finish off >>> the migration to Maven. Then we need to start splitting the client and >>> server (along with designing the protocols as we have discussed). >> >> Maven integration kept going (privately) and I have most, if not all of >> the code updated to the last commit. >> >> Thing is that Michael prepared a discussion because of simple but very >> important things like renaming packages and module structure and there was >> little to no feedback from the community. This was more than enough for (at >> least) me to think there was no common interest in what me and Michael were >> doing and therefore I stopped. >> >>> Perhaps >>> then we redesign the UI, or maybe simply making it more flashy. Maybe we >>> focus on a mobile client. Not sure. >>> >>> ~Michael >>> >>> On 5/30/13 4:15 AM, "John Blossom" <[email protected]> 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. >>>> >>>> - 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. 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 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, >>>> 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 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 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 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 30, 2013 5:55 AM, "Christian Grobmeier" <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Bruno Gonzalez <[email protected]> >>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> 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 >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:53 PM, John Blossom <[email protected]> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>> >>> >> >>
