In regards to the meeting, please let us know how it goes ill be unable to attend due to my current uni workload (exams and assignments are everywhere).
In regards with starting from scratch, I did purpose this idea before hand but it is 3 large scale projects on its own, Wave is an interesting project in the sense that you have to build most of the entire ecosystem it runs on, whether that be a multiuser text editor (for any platform) and an OT transform layer that sits below it. Then below those layers sits the server which relies on the specs of the Schema's (Document, Conversation, ....). I believe the current issue with the projects "complexity" is more the front end bits which clutter the source, and there is multiple places it lives and the dependence issues gwt brings in before the new current version (not saying its great but its getting their). Being that this is apache, most devs are java devs which arnt the best in front end development, sure gwt is great but let it live completely differnt source tree so the server can sit by itself, but that means recreating the multi-user OT editor which no one so far wants to touch because like the people at GitHub have found its very hard to optimise an editor and generally using a non native language you are limited in your optimisations. Just my thoughts. ~ Evan On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 at 09:46 Benjamin B. <wixd...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > >> > > >
