I'll do my best to attend this meeting. It will be nice to see and discuss the plan, and from it, see where I can help :)
But I agree with Zachary, restarting from zero might not be a good idea.. 2016-08-31 16:58 GMT+02:00 Michael MacFadden <michael.macfad...@gmail.com>: > Adam, > > Thanks. I would love to brain stole with you all. > . > > ~Michael > > > On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:58 AM, Adam John <a...@sterlingsolved.com> wrote: > > > > This is great thinking, Thomas! > > > > Can we use the Google Doc and add your thoughts there? > > Or a copy of it? > > I think email is great and all, but a Google Doc is a suitable Wave > > substitute for this work since in the end what I think we want here is A > > Plan. > > > > These are all excellent questions and worth proper discussion. > > > > 100%: small manageable steps. > > > > Any thoughts on a call / hangout to work things out? > > > > Requested attendees: > > > > 1. Greg Cochard > > 2. Jonathan Leong > > 3. Price Clark > > 4. Thomas Wrobel > > 5. Evan Hughes > > 6. *Everyone on this list!* > > > > ;) > > > > Thanks, again... > > > > AJ > > > > Adam John > > (914) 623-8433 > > Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn < > http://mradamjohn.com/> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> ""an entirely new Wave codebase"" > >> > >> Or even the first building block that would become that. > >> If wave goal is defined as something like, "some sort of open > >> federated protocol to selectively share informative securely between > >> users" > >> > >> Would the first steps be too; > >> a) define how data is synced between servers.Presumably from > >> exchanging the changes. > >> i) OT still I assume? > >> b) define how data is synced between clients.Presumably from > >> exchanging the changes. > >> i) OT again? maybe closely related to above? > >> c) How to identify users? (existing standard usable here?) > >> > >> d) Then start implementation of a reference server. > >> e) Then start implementation of a completely separated reference client. > >> f) THEN work on user interface aspects of the (various!) clients. > >> > >> This is all just spitballing. Feel free to put yay, nay or "hell no" > >> next to any of the above. > >> I just think if there is _any_ hope to survive outside apache we need > >> small, manageable steps - hopefully each one useful in itself. > >> > >> -- > >> http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. > >> http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator. > >> > >> > >>> On 31 August 2016 at 13:53, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > >>> 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. > >> >
