Sorry to have missed you, Thomas. "Cant a date be set, a vote be taken, then either import SwellRT or not?" According to Upayavira there should be a proposal.
This is what I've found: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html Although this seems more targeted to new projects. So the process would be: (1) Create a proposal (2) Submit it to the group via email (3) Vote I've created this working document <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jhPRR9juJAhBBZ9qjYI5KxlaHSz-IJJdPQ6_3puwWBQ/edit?usp=sharing> to get us started - but not sure if the template at the link above is suitable. Talk soon! AJ Adam John (914) 623-8433 Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <http://mradamjohn.com/> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am sorry I didn't make the meeting, glade to see it was productive. > However, I am curious though why there is questions still as to if > SwellRT should be merged with wave. > > Wave development at apache is nearly dead. > Doing nothing and it will have to retire. No one has proposed a 3rd > option that I am aware of. > So in terms of community engagement, not seeing a downside. > > If theres technical downsides, thats another mater. But not aware > anyones raised any yet. > From what I have seen possibly my only concern is the API to > communicate to the server is just in javascript - we would > eventually need alternatives if we want to allow native iOS and > Android clients. > > > "activity similar to this starts brewing and > then it all dies down in a few months" > > > True. Seen it many times. > Maybe too much discussion with too little actual discussions resulting > in anything changing. > Cant a date be set, a vote be taken, then either import SwellRT or not? > > > > -- > http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. > http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator. > > > On 6 October 2016 at 18:21, Pablo Ojanguren <pablo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Adam for clarifying the questions. > > > > Also I agree with Upayavira, the primary discussion it might be more > about > > "ideas" and the community's "engagement" with them. After that, tech > > aspects would come. > > > > So, in this regard I would like to share some thoughts about SwellRT as a > > product... > > > > a) Where SwellRT fit in the market? Competitors? > > > > SwellRT current vision is closer to products like Firebase, Meteor and > > Realm. > > They are new breed of frameworks/platforms to write apps. They provide as > > key feature, real-time data storage with simple document-based data > models. > > Their aim is to simplify and speed up web/app development. And of course, > > they allow to build real-time collaboration features easily. > > > > Of course, these projects are matured, but they still have pros and cons. > > What it seems clear to me is the trend: to develop heavier apps/webapps > > (because nowadays devices have a lot of computing power and it means just > > coding for one system) and lighter backends providing common "services" > > (notifications, storage, auth...). > > > > > > > > b) What Wave/SwellRT's tech could offer in this market as innovation? > > Wave/SwellRT could compete with features like: > > > > - Open Source and JVM world: I guess there is still a part of the world > > happy to see a Java friendly framework, despite it works for Web (but > > hopefully for android/iOS). > > > > - Simpler API: with sugar syntax, for example, in SwellRT we are working > in > > a JS syntax just based in mutable objects. Also with API concepts easy to > > understand: objects and participants. > > > > - Full-featured collaborative writing: Wave was designed for text > editing, > > whereas these new frameworks are focused in JSON. For example, > annotations > > is a cool feature not easy to provide I guess. Also the Wave's text > editor > > is very good yet. > > > > - Federation: it is the hardest selling point for developers in general > > because it doesn't provide benefits in the short term. However, it is the > > entrance to innovative things like cross-app interoperability, organic > > scalability... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-10-05 23:47 GMT+02:00 Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk>: > > > >> I want to see a proposal regarding importing SwellRT that gives me > >> confidence that bringing SwellRT into Wave will actually lead to an > >> active project. > >> > >> A way this could be achieved *before* bringing SwellRT would be if > >> everyone who is interested in contributing headed over to SwellRT, and > >> started contributing over there. Then, we'd be bringing both code and > >> community into Apache, which would give me far more confidence than just > >> importing code but with no confidence that anyone is actually going to > >> do anything with it. > >> > >> Upayavira > >> > >> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016, at 10:03 PM, Adam John wrote: > >> > 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_ > WQGYAtDlN8Wqx8jJglPpw6tJznvMGf > >> dLOvQu96i0/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. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> >
