I can participate for either date. But the 28th works better for me, and if it works better for Yuri, I would think that would be ideal also.
On 9/3/16, 9:29 AM, "Adam John" <[email protected]> wrote: @thomas .. I agree that what Pablo has offered is both significant and seems to resolve a number of items that have been established as important. @yuri .. also agree with these points. @pablo I think we should adjust the date - earlier is probably not a good idea as it gives most people very short notice about a call on a "short week" in the US, and on the week that many schools start... So, while not preferred to push the date out 2 weeks I think it is the better choice. Any thoughts on the date change and meeting info below? Old Date: Wednesday September 14 at 10:00am EST New Date: *Wednesday September 28 at 10:00am EST* Agenda (WIP): * Discuss option to bring swellrt into wave - expected result will be "yes" or "no" if possible * Establish priorities/plan - reference The Wavy Future document (link <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YnhcupFtReZyq5Y5QheIbYFO2epEhXGucNZE04r_oA4/edit> ) * Set next steps - including the next full group meeting/discussion Please add/change this agenda as you see fit. Requested attendees: 1. Greg Cochard 2. Jonathan Leong 3. Price Clark 4. Thomas Wrobel 5. Evan Hughes 7. Pablo Ojanguren 6. *Everyone on this list!* Thanks, folks. AJ Adam John (914) 623-8433 Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <http://mradamjohn.com/> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Thomas Wrobel <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1 September 2016 at 17:04, Pablo Ojanguren <[email protected]> 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. > > Thats a huge "only"! > > > > 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. > > > At this point surely this should be seriously considered.? > If your willing to do that, maybe the best result for effort is > everyone now helping get your work into the main wave project. > > This seems significant enough to me to even offer wave a stay of > execution from Apache, provided we can agree this is the way forward? > Your work seems to solve a few problems slowing down progress, while > simultaneously being also being a fairly big contribution in itself. > > > Group; may I suggest this option be seriously discussed first before > settling on migration/retirement? > > > > > > > > > > 2016-09-01 8:35 GMT+02:00 Ed - 0x1b, Inc. <[email protected]>: > > > >> 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. > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> >
