Adam - I don't know if this will post to the Apache list, but ApacheWave will have problems with the use of the word Apache - call it something different - like StandingWave - you get the idea - I think Github is a great host, especially if you can get the <newname>.io domain etc
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Adam John <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> > 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 <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> 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 < >> [email protected] >> > > > >> > > >> 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 < >> [email protected]> >> > > 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" <[email protected]> >> > > 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" < >> [email protected]> >> > > 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. >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>
