Adam, Whilst I appreciate that you are trying to help with the ApacheWave repos, I really don't want us to go that way. Wave is already available on Github as https://github.com/apache/incubator-wave. If this project folds, and the code goes to live on on github, it must be called something other than *apache* wave, as to call it Apache XYZ would be a misuse of a trademark.
Let's decide whether or not the project continues here, and if it doesn't, then we'll discuss what happens with the various parts of the project once that decision is made. I still think that the best course of action is for a few people to get together and produce an entirely new Wave codebase. We've tried, and failed with the codebase we have. Upayavira On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, at 08:25 AM, Adam John wrote: > Created a GitHub organization, added each of the available repos: > https://github.com/ApacheWave > > I think I invited everyone on this thread - however there are many others > on the list. > All are welcome. > > Loss of Apache incubator status is significant as it means also > organizational loss, tools lost, and would effectively put a nail in the > coffin for the project. > > WebCMS, Jira, Jenkins, and Travis are all valuable tools, and part of > Incubator status. > > Quality code review (thanks, vega and wisebaldone etc) and an established > process for the inclusion of new contributions by people familiar with > existing approaches and the work in progress... all of this is > significant. > > The people on this list - and even the list itself - both a service and > an > organization that would be a significant loss in any transition... > > I think the safety of the incubator is important, for these reasons and > more; and there needs to be improved communication, planning and > coordination... here again, just my opinion. > > AJ > > Adam John > (914) 623-8433 > Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn > <http://mradamjohn.com/> > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > > > The best future for Wave at Apache would, I think be to start an > > entirely new project at GitHub, and implement a Wave system that people > > can actually understand. Once that gains traction, come back to the > > Incubator and ask to resurrect Apache Wave with that new codebase. > > > > The current codebase seems to be simply too complex for people to be > > able to pick up. The idea stands as a good one, but the code is just too > > complex. > > > > Upayavira > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, at 09:58 PM, Taylor Fahlman wrote: > > > I've been a reader of this list for a while. I am another one of the > > > people > > > who would love to contribute, but literally have no idea where to start. > > > I > > > really think that if the code was divided a bit more it'd be easier to > > > contribute, because I want to see this project keep going. It really does > > > have a lot of potential in the current climate of silo-ed communication > > > systems. An easy docker image would really help too. > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:54 PM Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > While the code will always be there in some form, is there any real > > > > hope outside of Apache though? will it not just fizzle out? > > > > Apache provides somewhat needed pressure, structure and to some extent > > > > even prestige. > > > > > > > > While retirement is understandable necessity for things without > > > > progress, its nevertheless sad for a project with such potential. Is > > > > it possible to put a call out for developers? a last warning? a > > > > advert? something beyond this list? > > > > I have no idea what form it would take though. I am so ignorant with > > > > big projects, both socially and structurally. Theres tools out there > > > > supposed to help motivate and organised (www.teamily.com) dont know > > > > how effectively they are though. > > > > > > > > It just all seems such a waste for wave to die, its death marking a > > > > little lost hope for the open web to recover some ground from the > > > > closed hubs that dominate today. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. > > > > http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 30 August 2016 at 21:41, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > > > > > As I said earlier in this thread, retirement means the closure of an > > > > > "apache" community. The code is already open source. So long as the > > > > > trademark and the Apache License V2 on the code are respected, as > > now, > > > > > anyone is free to do what they like with the code. > > > > > > > > > > Thus, if someone (or someones) wanted to move it to Github, that'd be > > > > > fine. I'm sure Apache wouldn't object to them using the name "Wave" > > in > > > > > some form. > > > > > > > > > > Upayavira > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, at 08:54 PM, Michael MacFadden wrote: > > > > >> Yuri, > > > > >> > > > > >> Being a mostly silent participant at this point. I would tend to > > agree > > > > >> with you. I think however, we should provide a “what next” > > option. So > > > > >> for example, people might be more willing to retire the project if > > they > > > > >> knew for example we could move to github and still allow people to > > > > >> contribute and develop if they see fit. > > > > >> > > > > >> ~Michael > > > > >> > > > > >> On 8/30/16, 11:52 AM, "Yuri Z" <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> After some thought I hate to agree, that at current levels of > > > > >> participation > > > > >> the only rational choice is to decide to retire as we are just > > > > >> wasting > > > > >> Apache Foundation resources without any real hope of graduating. > > > > >> Moreover, there were a few active projects based on Apache Wave > > that > > > > >> felt > > > > >> little motivation to contribute back actively. I think this is > > > > >> because they > > > > >> found little need in Apache Foundation resources, while > > contributing > > > > >> back > > > > >> required certain effort to comply with Apache rules. > > > > >> > > > > >> I think we should hold a retirement vote and either recruit > > > > >> sufficient > > > > >> number of supporters willing and able actively participate > > > > >> immediately, or > > > > >> retire. > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 9:13 PM Jonathan Leong < > > jon.le...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > I would hate to see this project retire. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Adam you bring up good points. I can get the ball rolling with > > > > the Docker > > > > >> > image. I'll see what I can get done over the next week or so. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -Jonathan Leong > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Adam John < > > a...@sterlingsolved.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I have to weigh in and say that I agree that the bar here > > was > > > > set high > > > > >> > from > > > > >> > > several perspectives. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > I'm currently evaluating what components of this project > > can be > > > > most > > > > >> > useful > > > > >> > > for incorporation into 2 separate projects. If either one > > moves > > > > forward > > > > >> > in > > > > >> > > the next 6 months, there will be more developers actively > > > > involved here. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > That said, I've watched some of the transition videos from > > > > Google folks > > > > >> > and > > > > >> > > read a lot of the docs, reviewed code and worked on > > > > implementing this > > > > >> > > project for myself. It is daunting and would benefit > > overall > > > > from 2 > > > > >> > > significant - imho critical - updates; > > > > >> > > (1) the Product itself needs real changes - like the > > concept of > > > > bots > > > > >> > needs > > > > >> > > pulled out from core terminology and revamped as a more > > current > > > > common > > > > >> > > concept / ie agents. There needs to be better organization > > of > > > > the > > > > >> > Product > > > > >> > > from concept to contribution. This is not to diminish the > > vast > > > > resources > > > > >> > > present, only to highlight an improvement area. > > > > >> > > (2) the Architecture needs serious review and revision to > > > > figure out how > > > > >> > > best to leverage other projects and allow focus on the > > specific > > > > benefits > > > > >> > > this project enables. The technology stack overall needs > > better > > > > >> > separation > > > > >> > > at least from a newcomers perspective. > > > > >> > > As a third factor, and #1 on my list for adoption is rolling > > > > docker > > > > >> > images > > > > >> > > for the project. This is essential in my humble opinion to > > > > allow new > > > > >> > > developers to focus on the pieces they feel most equipped to > > > > contribute > > > > >> > > comfortably... > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > I don't know how the major changes I am suggesting get > > > > introduced and > > > > >> > > discussed in much more detail. I'm hoping that perhaps I > > lieue > > > > of a > > > > >> > > potentially dismissive email "vote" ... Maybe a virtual > > > > conference would > > > > >> > be > > > > >> > > of interest? I would hope that the participants of such a > > > > convention > > > > >> > would > > > > >> > > be the core of a nascent rebirth. Yes I am volunteering to > > > > help take > > > > >> > this > > > > >> > > on if there is interest... > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Adam John > > > > >> > > (914) 623-8433 > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > On Aug 30, 2016 12:43 PM, "Zachary Yaro" <zmy...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > I am in a similar boat. I have front-end development > > skills, > > > > but I > > > > >> > > struggle to fully understand the back-end functionality or > > begin > > > > >> > separating > > > > >> > > the client from the server. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Zachary Yaro > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > On Aug 30, 2016 11:51 AM, "Thomas Wrobel" < > > darkfl...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I have tried on 3 separate occasions to understand the > > > > server. Its > > > > >> > > > simply not in my skillset and I don't have the time to > > learn. > > > > I don't > > > > >> > > > wish to sound arrogant there, theres learning needed for > > > > anything of > > > > >> > > > course. But its too much investment - I want to apply > > skills > > > > that I > > > > >> > > > already have. Last time I tried to get into wave > > development > > > > (which > > > > >> > > > was I admit a few years back) it took me 3 days to even > > > > compile the > > > > >> > > > server. Which is frustrating for someone that just wants > > to > > > > work on a > > > > >> > > > client. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > So I am certainly not waiting for permission, I am waiting > > > > for a > > > > >> > > > prerequisite of a server/client split. I understand I can > > > > neither > > > > >> > > > demand or expect such a thing. Developers on a project > > like > > > > this just > > > > >> > > > have to jump in on what they feel like. Nothing can > > really be > > > > expected > > > > >> > > > and I accept that. > > > > >> > > > I simply am informing there's "lesser" developers like me > > > > that could > > > > >> > > > work on bits if certain other things happen. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >
