I cannot agree more, Wave is about federation. But, the current implementation is broken, hard to fix and never worked fine. We need to think about better implementation. And there's no point to keep current broken implementation that can't work.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:55 PM Dave Ball <w...@glark.co.uk> wrote: > I only exist in the peanut gallery, but this reflects my feelings too. > Wave isn't wave without federation... I wish I had the time to help :-( > > Dave > > On 07/04/16 16:42, Thomas Wrobel wrote: > > I'm not sure there's any point in wave without federation frankly. > > I supported wave because I didn't want the net turning into "facebook > > protocols" and "google protocols" etc. We need new emails. Protocols > > that allow people on different servers to communicate, not protocols > > trying to get everyone on the same companies server. > > I still fear a future of incompatibility. Of people having to be on > > server X because their friends are all on server X (and thus server X > > has no incentive to ever get better). Email is getting increasingly > > dated, and there's not much else federated out there even today. As > > the web grows into real-space applications, there will be probably > > even greater need for open communications standards. > > While the comparison of email interface wise might have harmed wave > > somewhat from a user expectation standpoint, I do think the same needs > > are there - a new federated, open, protocol to deal with today's web. > > - sigh - > > -- > > http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. > > http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator. > > > > > > On 7 April 2016 at 17:25, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi > >> Currently the federation is broken and requires a significant effort to > >> fix. Moreover, it never worked perfectly and always was a kind of Proof > Of > >> Concept version. I doubt we can improve the current implementation to be > >> something stable. > >> Therefore I suggest to remove from Wave source all code and dependencies > >> related to Federation. > >> Thoughts? > >
