I forgot to metion two things also can help to get contributors: SwellRT has mentored a student this last GSoC to move federation from XMPP to Matrix. The code needs a deep peer review before merging into Wave https://github.com/Waqee/incubator-wave
We are running a development contest this month, http://swellrt.org/contest/ 2016-09-04 22:04 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Leong <jon.le...@gmail.com>: > The 28th works for me > > On Sep 4, 2016 1:40 PM, "Greg Cochard" <greg.coch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The 28th should work for me. I'm definitely for breaking apart the > backend > > and frontend. A clean separation via an API layer will make iterating and > > frontend experimentation much easier. > > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2016, 9:44 AM Michael MacFadden < > > michael.macfad...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > 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" <a...@sterlingsolved.com> 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/1YnhcupFtReZyq5Y5QheIbYFO2epEh > > XGucNZE04r_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 <darkfl...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 1 September 2016 at 17:04, 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. > > > > > > > > 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. <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. > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
