Please do remember, that while in person meetups or synchronous hangouts can be useful, they are also by their nature somewhat exclusive. Therefore, please use them with restraint, and keep as much discussion, and all decisions, here on the list.
Thanks! Upayavira On Mon, Jun 17, 2013, at 01:37 PM, John Blossom - Shore Communications Inc. wrote: > In-person would be great. I am NYC/Boston area, where is everyone else. > In > the meantime much can be done on Hangouts to make in-person as productive > as possible. J > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Joseph Gentle <jose...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Yep, I agree. Where should _that_ discussion happen? > > > > -J > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Michael MacFadden > > <michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > A google hang out amongst wave developers is a great idea. However this > > is not a substitute for presenting and discussing the future of OT with the > > active research community. > > > > > > ~Michael > > > > > > On Jun 16, 2013, at 5:32 PM, John Blossom <jblos...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Joseph, my thought is that we can have a Google+ Hangout and invite > > >> everyone in the Wave community and beyond interested in OT and related > > >> issues. Doesn't have to be perfect, we just need to get the > > >> dialogue.rolling, it seems. We can always have more. Say Weds or > > Thursday > > >> around 1700 UT+1? Pick a number. John > > >> > > >> All the best, > > >> > > >> John Blossom > > >> > > >> email: jblos...@gmail.com > > >> phone: 203.293.8511 > > >> google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Joseph Gentle <jose...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Sounds interesting. Where is this going to be held? It might be > > >>> interesting for a few people on this list, too. > > >>> > > >>> -J > > >>> > > >>> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Michael MacFadden > > >>> <michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> After hooking up with Google for wave. I have been the lead architect > > >>> for an OT framework much like the real time drive API being built at my > > >>> company. I am encouraging my developers to reengage the apache > > community so > > >>> we can actively contribute back. We have also done a in depth > > literature > > >>> review regarding OT and have worked with many other teams adding OT to > > >>> several projects. > > >>>> > > >>>> I personally will be chairing the 14th International Workshop on > > >>> Collaborative Editing Systems (IWCES) at the ACM Computer Supported > > >>> Collaborative Work (CSCW) conference next February. This workshop is > > one of > > >>> the primary places where leading OT researchers, industry, and open > > source > > >>> projects come to exchange ideas. > > >>>> > > >>>> I think this would be a very good community for you to get involved > > with > > >>> if you are looking at OT. There are a lot of lessons learned, > > especially on > > >>> using OT for rich document editing (word, PowerPoint, Vim, etc. ). > > >>>> > > >>>> I am sure there are more than enough extremely smart folks on the Open > > >>> Office team, but perhaps I/we could help out if you are not to far > > along. > > >>>> > > >>>> Regards, > > >>>> > > >>>> ~Michael > > >>>> > > >>>> On Jun 16, 2013, at 6:50 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Adding Svante Schubert to the thread, from the ODF Toolkit project. > > >>>>> He also chairs the subcommittee at OASIS that has been looking at OT > > >>>>> for change tracking in ODF. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Michael MacFadden > > >>>>> <michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On 6/16/13 2:51 PM, "Michael MacFadden" < > > michael.macfad...@gmail.com> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Rob, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I would be interested in continuing this conversation. I have been > > >>>>>>> working with the top minds in OT for the past few years. I am > > excited > > >>> to > > >>>>>>> hear the OO is interested in an OT supported mechanism. How far > > along > > >>> are > > >>>>>>> you in the process? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> It is very early and mainly happening in the standards committee at > > >>>>> OASIS. The ultimate aim is to have something that could work across > > >>>>> applications, not just between two OpenOffice instances. So this > > >>>>> requires a sensitivity to the document model abstraction, to work at > > >>>>> the ODF level, not just with an application's internal view of a > > >>>>> document. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> OpenOffice committers are involved in the standardization side of > > >>>>> this, as well as LibreOffice and Calligra and Gnumeric, as well as > > >>>>> Microsoft. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Initially it is about defining the document model, in a way that > > makes > > >>>>> sense to the user. Since tracked changes are visible to the user, to > > >>>>> approve or reject, we need it at a granularity that makes sense to > > >>>>> them. Then based on those primitives, and the associated actions, we > > >>>>> can develop an XML-based notation for expressing the state > > >>>>> transformations. That gets us to the static/stored form of > > >>>>> traditional change tracking. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Not in plan officially is the next step, which would be the protocols > > >>>>> for exchanging such information in real-time. But it is a > > possibility > > >>>>> (even a likelihood) that is informing our design decisions. We're > > >>>>> mindful that the real-time collaborative editing is the logical next > > >>>>> step and we're trying to lay the right foundations for that at the > > >>>>> format level. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> One sub-goal, for enabling the real-time side of this, would be to > > >>>>> standardize the protocols at some level, so clients from different > > >>>>> vendors could do this kind of collaboration in a heterogeneous kind > > of > > >>>>> way. Is there anything in Wave that would be a good basis for a > > >>>>> standard? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Of course a perfectly valid approach would be to prototype first and > > >>>>> then standardize. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Regards, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -Rob > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>> ~Michael > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Jun 16, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I'm not subscribed to this list, but Christian Grobmeier pointed > > me > > >>> to > > >>>>>>>> John's post about how OT and Wave could be relevant to OpenOffice. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I wanted to mention that the idea is being discussed, but at the > > >>>>>>>> standards level. The default document format for OpenOffice is > > Open > > >>>>>>>> Document Format (ODF), which is standardized at OASIS and ISO. (I > > >>>>>>>> chair the committee at OASIS). We're currently working on ODF 1.3 > > >>> and > > >>>>>>>> as part of that we're adding a new change tracking mechanism > > based on > > >>>>>>>> OT. This is the traditional asynchronous change tracking that > > office > > >>>>>>>> suites have had for years, but modeled on OT terms. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> And, although not specified at this point, we're also aware that > > OT > > >>>>>>>> enables more interesting modes of collaboration, including > > >>>>>>>> synchronous/real-time, co-editing, etc. That's the main reason > > the > > >>> OT > > >>>>>>>> approach is attractive, is that we can have a single model that > > will > > >>>>>>>> work for change tracking as well as co-editing. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Once we get the standard side of this elaborated in more details, > > >>> then > > >>>>>>>> the next step will be to get it implemented in Apache OpenOffice > > as > > >>>>>>>> well as the Apache ODF Toolit (incubating). But the pace of > > >>>>>>>> standardization is slow, and I wouldn't expect this before 2014. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> -Rob > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> Opinions expressed in this communication reflect the author's > > >>>>> individual personal view, not necessarily that of an amorphous > > >>>>> collective. The above statements do not reflect an official position > > >>>>> of any organization, corporation, religion (organized or > > disorganized) > > >>>>> or national football association. The contents of said note are not > > >>>>> guaranteed to have been spell checked, grammar checked or reviewed > > for > > >>>>> metrical infelicities. The contents of this post may not be suitable > > >>>>> for those whose native language is not logic. Caution should be > > >>>>> exercised when operating heavy machinery when reading this note, or > > >>>>> even when not reading it. Seriously, heavy machinery is dangerous. > > >>>>> Be careful. > > >>> > >
