I am not sure we know how to do it right anyways. On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 11:53 PM Michael MacFadden < michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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? > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >
