@pablo awesome! @thomas lol @ed ... yes, switched it over to "anotherWave" for now. ;) Open to suggestions.
Here is a link to a calendar item on the suggested date/time to discuss the project. There is a Google Hangout included for the conference. Wednesday September 14 at 10:00am EST (https://calendar.google.com/calendar/event?action=TEMPLATE&; tmeid=c2dzZTBsbmQ4dGdnc3YyZzRmYWI5cDhlMGsgYWpAc3Rlcmxpbmdzb2 x2ZWQuY29t&tmsrc=aj%40sterlingsolved.com) Lets stay open to changing the date/time until tomorrow: Friday 5pm. This way we can push the date to an evening or weekend if additional people can call in... but unless someone proposes another time, it isn't changing. ;) Thanks, and talk soon! AJ Adam John (914) 623-8433 Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <http://mradamjohn.com/> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Pablo Ojanguren <pablo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have been developing a fork of Apache Wave for 2 years (swellrt.org) I > can say I have very good knowledge of wave's server and gwt client, I have > made changes in almost all the layers of Wave with more or less impact. > > IMHO to start a wave-like project from scratch is an extremly large and > complex project. All we tend to think to build something from scratch is > easier than understand something already done. > > The only thing I can offer to the community is to help other developers to > APIfy the exiting code, removing the GWT UI parts, and transform the rest > into a Javascript API in order to use any frontend framework. I did > something analog in SwellRT, but removing all Wave's conversation stuff. > > Also I was asked to contribute the whole SwellRT API to Wave, this is > another option I am happy to do if the community finds ok, but also I would > need help from more developers. > > Hope it helps! > > > 2016-09-01 8:35 GMT+02:00 Ed - 0x1b, Inc. <w...@0x1b.com>: > >> 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 <a...@sterlingsolved.com> >> 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. >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >
