I can't make it from Sept, 10th to Sept 26th. Is there any choice to set an earlier date?
2016-09-01 18:25 GMT+02:00 Adam John <a...@sterlingsolved.com>: > @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. >>> >> > > >> > > > >>> >> > > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >>> >> >>> >> >> >
