+1 to Bruno and Upayavira. For now I think we should keep just one mailing list, we're too small.
I know that is too painful to have to go through topics that we don't understand or care about, but for now it's a small sacrifice for a greater cause. On the other end, what would be the value of having separated discussions of how this could be organized, marketed, funded... if, as it seems, most of the active "doers" (devs) aren't interested in engaging on this kind of talks, at least for the moment? <my perception, could be wrong about it> Wave On http://alfredo.abambres.com *"Moving, always moving, and living inside movement". Rainer Maria Rilke* On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com>wrote: > Folks please don't forget one thing: if it doesn't happen on list, it > didn't happen. > Votes, decision makings in general etc belong to the mailing list. It > needs to be documented, there need to be a chance for non-IRCers to > intervene. > Also it might make sense to discuss debugging things on ml - others > may see people are active here (important to potential contributors) > and of course its a great documentation if somebody runs in a similar > problem. > > I know some people love IRC/whatever, but ASF is mailing list centric. > That said, if folks would write the Wave/Mailinglist Bridge, nothing > speaks against using Wave. In fact, I would think this might even > cause some kind of revolution here. > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak) > <sten...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Some of us are at #wiab@freenode while we test federation, since it's > > faster to debug stuff over IM than over emails. > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Fleeky Flanco <fle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> also as much as i really really want to do most of this communication on > >> someone (anyone's) wave server has anyone thought of having an official > >> wave irc channel on freenode or something ? > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:53 AM, John Blossom <jblos...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > Upayavira, Thanks, those are my thoughts exactly. I will not inundate > >> this > >> > community unnecessarily with communications, but I agree that > focusing on > >> > having a community that's vibrant and engaged is a key function of > this > >> > list. If we get more developers excited and engaged then that's a good > >> > thing - and that's what we need to focus on. Once there's more > consensus > >> on > >> > development direction, then we can think about a platform-product > channel > >> > as necessary. Perhaps in the meantime we can agree to some subject > line > >> > protocol that will make it easier for people to filter messages, such > as > >> a > >> > hashtag (#waveforward). > >> > > >> > Best, > >> > John > >> > > >> > email: jblos...@gmail.com > >> > phone: 203.293.8511 > >> > google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Paulo, > >> > > > >> > > I'm not saying we won't separate, I'm just saying I want us to wait > a > >> > > bit. I'm asking you to sit with the pain for a bit longer, so we can > >> > > allow what the other, non-coding discussions are really about to > >> emerge, > >> > > and for others to show up and start engaging with the coding part of > >> > > this project - that's the most important thing in the end. Talk is > >> easy, > >> > > actually doing takes more effort. > >> > > > >> > > Upayavira > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013, at 02:51 PM, Paulo Pires wrote: > >> > > > Please, separate things! Political & management stuff one way, > >> > > > development/user support another. > >> > > > It's really painful to get dozens of e-mails just because of logo > >> stuff > >> > > > and such, no matter how important the subject is. And yes, I can > use > >> > > > filters, but still they're not perfect and are PITA to maintain. > >> > > > > >> > > > PP > >> > > > > >> > > > On Jun 6, 2013, at 1:58 PM, "John Blossom - Shore Communications > >> Inc." > >> > > > <jblos...@shore.com> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Good points all. I am content to continue the Wave:Forward > level of > >> > > > > discussion in this venue, as long as we're focusing on the > >> > > re-architecture > >> > > > > of the Wave platform it's very much a development focus. Perhaps > >> > > another > >> > > > > list will make sense when there's more of a product management > >> focus > >> > > for > >> > > > > Wave - but first we need a more marketable platform. So I will > >> > > continue to > >> > > > > feed ideas on market requirements and product specifications > here > >> for > >> > > now, > >> > > > > unless something else evolves. And yes, it will be nice to "eat > our > >> > > own dog > >> > > > > food" and use Wave itself as the communications platform. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > John > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Saludos, > > Bruno González > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com > > http://www.stenyak.com > > > > -- > http://www.grobmeier.de > https://www.timeandbill.de >
