Any consensus then on how to move forward? I've signed up and started looking around swellrt. Only been able to ""debug"" the setup instructions so far, but I hope to contribute more.
If the agreed logic is "SwellRT needs to show more activity before it can become the main apache branch", then I feel everyone in this list should at least be signing onto Gitter (https://gitter.im/P2Pvalue/swellrt) and taking a look around the project/related projects to see if theres anything that takes their fancy. https://github.com/P2Pvalue/swellrt https://github.com/P2Pvalue/swellrt-android https://github.com/P2Pvalue/angular-swellrt https://github.com/P2Pvalue/swellrt-pad https://github.com/P2Pvalue/swellrt-java Theres probably a broad enough range that most people can contribute something. -- http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator. On 15 October 2016 at 20:52, Bradley D. Thornton <brad...@northtech.us> wrote: > This is the link below that I cannot seem to locate. > > > On 8/30/2016 11:25 PM, Adam John 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. >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus >
