Just a random thing that might help wave in a small way; StackOverflow still only has a tag for "Google-Wave". Surely this should be changed? or someone with a high enough rank create a new tag? Just try to help as much as possible greese the wheels for people finding wave related technical info.
~~~ Thomas & Bertines online review show: http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) On 7 December 2013 23:18, John Blossom <jblos...@gmail.com> wrote: > Good points, Bruno, I think that you summed it up very well. I'd only add > that in theory the broader Apache community should act as a draw for the > project, but the social infrastructure for Apache doesn't seem to amplify > that value for Wave. A more flexible approach might help to get a core > group of people more jazzed about making a core capability take off. I can > see where at some point folding back into Apache might be a reasonable > option, and I was hopeful that the Apache framework would help to > accelerate team-building, and the core Apache people we've dealt with are > great, but somehow the combination of culture and collaboration tools > hasn't hit the mark for Wave. > > Thanks, John > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak) < > sten...@stenyak.com> wrote: > > > Hi all, sorry to reply this late, but here's my point of view. > > > > > > Legal point of view: > > From my understanding, being at Apache, and following its strict > > policies, should in theory attract serious companies to invest money > > into the project, being reassured that the legal risks are minimal. > > Unfortunately, not much of the sort seems to have happened yet. I > > personally think that, on the contrary, it has in part contributed to > > wasting precious time. What I mean is that, I'd much rather have a > > 50%-legally-sound and alive project, than a 99%-legally-sound but almost > > dead project. > > If the project had 10 people devoting their spare time, parallelizing > > efforts in several planes (one of them the licensing issues), then maybe > > it wouldn't be such a burden to keep up with those policies. But it > > breaks my kernel to see the most valuable contributors having to deal > > with random icon licensing stuff. > > In this regard, my vote would be: in favour of leaving Apache. > > > > Social point of view: > > The "Apache" name surely is known by many people. At least in the > > developer community. This could more easily attract them to the project. > > But given the total amount of project we have really working on the > > project, I'm not sure whether the 'Apache' name is actually better than > > simply having the code at github with actual p2p VCS capabilities. > > For that, my vote would be neutral at best, and leaning towards leaving > > Apache. > > > > > > Technical point of view: > > A big point for staying at Apache is that we have a big infrastructure > > already in place: issue tracker, code repository, wiki, mailing list, > > possibility to use virtual machines for free, etc. > > However, that's also the problem: being provided and maintained by a > > third party (from the point of view of our project), means there's no > > flexibility as to what VCS we want to use (a read-only mirror at github > > is missing the whole point about git), what communication medium to > > officially use (the dogfooding argument), etc. > > This is what I've had the closest (though scarce) experience with, and > > in my case, I feel it has slowed me down, having to divert potential > > coding time into non-important stuff. I don't know how much time, but > > surely > 0. > > For that, I'd vote in favour of leaving apache. > > > > > > > > All in all, and unless things can be done in a different way while still > > staying at Apache, my opinion is that we would prolly be better off > > outside Apache at this point (in the future maybe it'd be better to go > > back, but I don't see how things could get worse by leaving Apache now). > > > > > > On 11/28/13 11:02, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > > > I believe it makes sense to discuss if the incubator is the right > place. > > > Incubation has a specific goal: forming a team which can do releases > > > and is - in a way - active. > > > > > > I see there is little activity at all. The only person i have seen > > > working on the codebase recently was Ali. > > > He also was the release manager of package which had trouble to > > > receive the necessary votes from its own team. > > > > >
