I agree, I don’t think any one was talking about removing federation as a goal.
On 4/9/16, 6:34 AM, "Thomas Wrobel" <darkfl...@gmail.com> wrote: >Oh, if its only the current implementation, sure if its not got value. >Being merely a onlooker its been a long time since I have looked at >the codebase - but would removing even a broken implementation cause >any issues as regards to putting a new implementation in in the >future? That is, does it serve a purpose even as a ''placeholder'' to >prevent other aspects of the code being made in a way as to make >federation awkward later? > > >-- >http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. >http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator. > > >On 8 April 2016 at 00:10, Evan Hughes <ehu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Removing the current implementation is fine, I see no problems with that, >> aslong as theres enough documents to be able to recreate it from spec. >> On 08/04/2016 2:22 AM, "Yuri Z" <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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? >>> > >>> > >>>
