Pablo, a lot of great information in this slide deck. I hope others have a chance to review as well. Outstanding work.
Price, very thoughtful responses. I agree with the overall conclusion - SwellRT should be brought into Wave. I like the idea of moving the SwellRT fork in to replace the current branch of Wave development because it moves the project reasonably forward and makes sense overall. It does not seem anything current would be lost in that move. It seems like we have everything to gain. However, there might be work in progress that is affected. It would be great if contributors on the project took a look and shared some thoughts. Q3) For current contributors; are you in favor of bringing the fork home? - Great attendance at our last meeting, and familiar ground was covered. (agenda and notes <https://docs.google.com/document/d/11j_WQGYAtDlN8Wqx8jJglPpw6tJznvMGfdLOvQu96i0/edit>) We're largely covering the next steps in recent emails. If the group agrees, that we should bring SwellRT into Apache Wave, then there needs to be a proposal drafted. Q4) Does anyone have interest, experience or desire to help with this task? We do not expect to start until after the next meeting. - Perhaps 2-3 weeks is time enough to consider the questions posed? I'd like to plan our next steps; I suggest *10/26 as the next discussion* - based on consensus in the list of course. The goal of the next meeting will be to provide a chance to address any questions regarding bringing the projects together. Perhaps this could be a technically deeper discussion. Q5) Does anyone have interest in a standing co-work session? Especially important would be current contributors. I think this could be a good way for some on the list that have stalled or reached impasse to begin to make progress in helping out. Thanks, everyone for your work and efforts. I believe that if each of us does just a little bit over the next few weeks we will continue to see the progress we need in this project. Adam John (914) 623-8433 Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <http://mradamjohn.com/> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Pablo Ojanguren <pablo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your answer Price, > > I guess we should not delay this discussion... > > I'd happy to run another call if you think it can move things forward. > > > > 2016-10-01 18:40 GMT+02:00 Price Clark <gpwcl...@gmail.com>: > > > Pablo, thanks for the presentation. > > > > While my qualifications to answer this are 0 getting to listen to > > Upayavira talk this week (the last Apache mentor if I'm not mistaken) > make > > me feel the answers to 1 and 2 are easy to answer. > > > > 1.) Upayavira communicated very fervently that there just isn't enough > > oomph in wave's development. Every year around the time that the > retirement > > conversation is brought up, activity similar to this starts brewing and > > then it all dies down in a few months. From this perspective "Does > SwellRT > > tackle current Wave problems?" The answer is unequivocally yes, SwellRT > is > > a more actively maintained fork of Wave and given the slowing/slowed pace > > of Wave *a merge with SwellRT is likely the only way to save this > project*. > > > > 2.) I would also like to bring up another point Upayavira made, > > "Communities are built around good ideas and bad code." Running with > that I > > thing that good ideas attract tinkerers and 'people with ideas' that > could > > eventually become 'contributors with ideas'. In some senses SwellRT > > splinters Apache Wave in a way that developers on this mailing list have > > been alluding to for a while. The client side code is not well understood > > and is definitely in the way of the server. SwellRT has a more general > goal > > of supplying a server that is capable of powering a front-end like the > > original vision of google wave. This means that merging with SwellRT > would > > force a separation of the client and server and allow for people with > > interests in either a front or back end to work in tandem. This seems > like > > an ingenious way to attract more people; anyone with an interest in the > > backend technology OR a way to use said technology in an application > could > > be a potential contributor. Unless I'm mistaken it seems like SwellRT > > offers a set of features that could be classified as a superset of Wave's > > features. So, it seems like most or all of SwellRT would be at home in > > Wave. Pablo also reasonably stated that he'd prefer to work in one > project. > > > > As for me, as soon as a direction is clear I would love to talk to > > someone actively maintaining/writing code so I can help them contribute > to > > whichever code survives in whatever way possible. > > >
