You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to wave-dev@incubator.apache.org by Evan Hughes <wi...@apache.org> on 2016/08/24 02:05:14 UTC
Retirement
Hello all,
Its that time of year again. Its nearing a year since retirement of the
project was brought up and it may be a good time to review the current
situation.
~ Evan
Re: Retirement
Posted by Pablo Ojanguren <pa...@gmail.com>.
Thanks @Thomas.
Sure @Upayavira, go ahead, import the project and try it!
If someone needs direct support, please use gitter's chat channel
https://gitter.im/P2Pvalue/swellrt
Also I keep offer to run a video call for deeper explanation of any aspect.
2016-10-22 15:12 GMT+02:00 Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>:
> This is all good to hear.
>
> There's two things here - with SwellRT's permission, we can import their
> code into our Git. We can start using it. Then, we can see whether we
> get sufficient momentum for SwellRT to want to continue their
> development over here. There's quite a few ways we can work this...
>
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, at 10:49 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
> > Well, I am not sure SwellRTs committer base, or how many will switch
> > over to Apache. But I also see no harm in Apache wavers, either
> > committers commentators or lurkers, contributing to SwellRT right now.
> > I
> >
> > As someone with zero experience of SwellRT, and only limited
> > Javascript skills, I found it very easy setting up the server and
> > writing a simple test app.
> > The CollaborativeObject model seems very intuitive, and the docs guide
> > the process well.
> > I haven't looked at the server-side code beyond getting it to run, but
> > so far everything's been pretty positive. Most things that put me off
> > before arnt there, so hopefully others that try it will feel the same.
> > There's no GWT, which I am sure many will celebrate - although for me
> > personally I'll probably end up writing a GWT wrapper for the SwellRT
> > client javascipt so I can use it myself ;)
> >
> > --
> > http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
> > http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator.
> >
> >
> > On 20 October 2016 at 18:31, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> > > These are great suggestions Thomas. What I'm suggesting is that I want
> > > to avoid porting SwellRT over to Apache, only for it to fail here due
> to
> > > lack of activity, when it was actually fine where it was.
> > >
> > > We need to make sure, out of respect for SwellRT, that it can gain a
> > > level of traction that makes it worth the effort porting it to Apache.
> > >
> > > The suggested steps you outline below are a great part of that.
> > >
> > > Upayavira
> > >
> > > On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, at 02:55 PM, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
> > >> 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 <
> Bradley@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 <uv...@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 <
> darkflame@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> aj@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" <
> zmyaro@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" <
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> darkflame@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
> > >> >
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
This is all good to hear.
There's two things here - with SwellRT's permission, we can import their
code into our Git. We can start using it. Then, we can see whether we
get sufficient momentum for SwellRT to want to continue their
development over here. There's quite a few ways we can work this...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, at 10:49 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
> Well, I am not sure SwellRTs committer base, or how many will switch
> over to Apache. But I also see no harm in Apache wavers, either
> committers commentators or lurkers, contributing to SwellRT right now.
> I
>
> As someone with zero experience of SwellRT, and only limited
> Javascript skills, I found it very easy setting up the server and
> writing a simple test app.
> The CollaborativeObject model seems very intuitive, and the docs guide
> the process well.
> I haven't looked at the server-side code beyond getting it to run, but
> so far everything's been pretty positive. Most things that put me off
> before arnt there, so hopefully others that try it will feel the same.
> There's no GWT, which I am sure many will celebrate - although for me
> personally I'll probably end up writing a GWT wrapper for the SwellRT
> client javascipt so I can use it myself ;)
>
> --
> http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
> http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator.
>
>
> On 20 October 2016 at 18:31, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> > These are great suggestions Thomas. What I'm suggesting is that I want
> > to avoid porting SwellRT over to Apache, only for it to fail here due to
> > lack of activity, when it was actually fine where it was.
> >
> > We need to make sure, out of respect for SwellRT, that it can gain a
> > level of traction that makes it worth the effort porting it to Apache.
> >
> > The suggested steps you outline below are a great part of that.
> >
> > Upayavira
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, at 02:55 PM, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
> >> 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 <Br...@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 <uv...@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 <da...@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> >> >>>
> >> >>> aj@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" <zm...@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" <
> >> >>>
> >> >>> darkflame@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
> >> >
Re: Retirement
Posted by Thomas Wrobel <da...@gmail.com>.
Well, I am not sure SwellRTs committer base, or how many will switch
over to Apache. But I also see no harm in Apache wavers, either
committers commentators or lurkers, contributing to SwellRT right now.
I
As someone with zero experience of SwellRT, and only limited
Javascript skills, I found it very easy setting up the server and
writing a simple test app.
The CollaborativeObject model seems very intuitive, and the docs guide
the process well.
I haven't looked at the server-side code beyond getting it to run, but
so far everything's been pretty positive. Most things that put me off
before arnt there, so hopefully others that try it will feel the same.
There's no GWT, which I am sure many will celebrate - although for me
personally I'll probably end up writing a GWT wrapper for the SwellRT
client javascipt so I can use it myself ;)
--
http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator.
On 20 October 2016 at 18:31, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> These are great suggestions Thomas. What I'm suggesting is that I want
> to avoid porting SwellRT over to Apache, only for it to fail here due to
> lack of activity, when it was actually fine where it was.
>
> We need to make sure, out of respect for SwellRT, that it can gain a
> level of traction that makes it worth the effort porting it to Apache.
>
> The suggested steps you outline below are a great part of that.
>
> Upayavira
>
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, at 02:55 PM, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
>> 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 <Br...@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 <uv...@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 <da...@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
>> >>>
>> >>> aj@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" <zm...@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" <
>> >>>
>> >>> darkflame@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
>> >
Re: Retirement
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
These are great suggestions Thomas. What I'm suggesting is that I want
to avoid porting SwellRT over to Apache, only for it to fail here due to
lack of activity, when it was actually fine where it was.
We need to make sure, out of respect for SwellRT, that it can gain a
level of traction that makes it worth the effort porting it to Apache.
The suggested steps you outline below are a great part of that.
Upayavira
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, at 02:55 PM, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
> 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 <Br...@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 <uv...@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 <da...@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> >>>
> >>> aj@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" <zm...@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" <
> >>>
> >>> darkflame@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
> >
Re: Retirement
Posted by Thomas Wrobel <da...@gmail.com>.
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 <Br...@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 <uv...@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 <da...@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
>>>
>>> aj@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" <zm...@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" <
>>>
>>> darkflame@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
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by "Bradley D. Thornton" <Br...@NorthTech.US>.
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 <uv...@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 <da...@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 <uv...@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 \u201cwhat next\u201d
>> 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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
>> aj@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" <zm...@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" <
>> darkflame@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
Re: Retirement
Posted by Jonathan Leong <jo...@gmail.com>.
Unless there's objections, I think we can find a way to record it. :-)
On Sep 5, 2016 3:36 PM, "Zachary Yaro" <zm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am excited to see all this. It is unlikely I can join the call during
> work hours—is there any chance it could be recorded (e.g., done as a
> Hangout On Air) so I can catch up later?
>
>
> Thank you,
> Zachary Yaro
>
> On Sep 5, 2016 11:16, "Adam John" <aj...@sterlingsolved.com> wrote:
>
> > @pablo that is great that you are working with the Complutense University
> > of Madrid! ... I'm adding an agenda item to give you a chance to talk
> about
> > the results of the contest if that is okay?
> >
> > If we can make progress on the peer review before the meeting, that would
> > be great as well.. also added a discussion item to the agenda for it. (
> > https://github.com/Waqee/incubator-wave)
> >
> > ---
> >
> > @andreas awesome, I've added you to the informal attendees list.
> >
> > Since Docker and Kubernetes both use Golang, I've been toying with them
> > lately as well. This highlights one of my earlier point about making
> > adjustments to this project that will best leverage other open source
> work.
> >
> > I had not found SOLID yet, but quick review and it seems intriguing... it
> > is related to good+interesting W3C work (https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-
> primer/
> > )
> >
> > ---
> >
> > @all ... I'll be starting 2 new threads, this one goes well beyond
> > 'Retirement' imho
> > Please join them as you deem appropriate.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Adam John
> > (914) 623-8433
> > Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <
> http://mradamjohn.com/
> > >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Andreas Kotes <
> > count-apache.org@flatline.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:08:23AM +0200, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
> > > > Server folk get that gwt away from me!
> > > > Gwt folk; get that server stuff away from me!
> > >
> > > everyone, get that Java away from me ;)
> > >
> > > *sigh* .. I've noticed that I've been moving on - towards Golang-based
> > > stuff.
> > >
> > > btw, you've see https://github.com/solid/solid ?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > count
> > >
> > > P.S: I hope to be able to make it on the 28th ..
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andreas 'count' Kotes
> > > Taming computers for humans since 1990.
> > > "Don't ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go
> do
> > > it.
> > > Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." -- Howard
> > > Thurman
> > >
> >
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Gaurav Shukla <gs...@gmail.com>.
Hello Everyone,
I am quite late to the discussion but I like the direction this project
might take. I tried contributing a few months back but the code base was
simply too complex.
I'll try to be available for hangout and I think this and well as any other
conference call we have should be recorded. The discussion would likely
help on boarding of new developers.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Zachary Yaro <zm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am excited to see all this. It is unlikely I can join the call during
> work hours—is there any chance it could be recorded (e.g., done as a
> Hangout On Air) so I can catch up later?
>
>
> Thank you,
> Zachary Yaro
>
> On Sep 5, 2016 11:16, "Adam John" <aj...@sterlingsolved.com> wrote:
>
> > @pablo that is great that you are working with the Complutense University
> > of Madrid! ... I'm adding an agenda item to give you a chance to talk
> about
> > the results of the contest if that is okay?
> >
> > If we can make progress on the peer review before the meeting, that would
> > be great as well.. also added a discussion item to the agenda for it. (
> > https://github.com/Waqee/incubator-wave)
> >
> > ---
> >
> > @andreas awesome, I've added you to the informal attendees list.
> >
> > Since Docker and Kubernetes both use Golang, I've been toying with them
> > lately as well. This highlights one of my earlier point about making
> > adjustments to this project that will best leverage other open source
> work.
> >
> > I had not found SOLID yet, but quick review and it seems intriguing... it
> > is related to good+interesting W3C work (https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-
> primer/
> > )
> >
> > ---
> >
> > @all ... I'll be starting 2 new threads, this one goes well beyond
> > 'Retirement' imho
> > Please join them as you deem appropriate.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Adam John
> > (914) 623-8433
> > Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <
> http://mradamjohn.com/
> > >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Andreas Kotes <
> > count-apache.org@flatline.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:08:23AM +0200, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
> > > > Server folk get that gwt away from me!
> > > > Gwt folk; get that server stuff away from me!
> > >
> > > everyone, get that Java away from me ;)
> > >
> > > *sigh* .. I've noticed that I've been moving on - towards Golang-based
> > > stuff.
> > >
> > > btw, you've see https://github.com/solid/solid ?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > count
> > >
> > > P.S: I hope to be able to make it on the 28th ..
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andreas 'count' Kotes
> > > Taming computers for humans since 1990.
> > > "Don't ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go
> do
> > > it.
> > > Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." -- Howard
> > > Thurman
> > >
> >
>
--
Regards !
Gaurav Shukla
gauravshukla.xyz
Re: Retirement
Posted by Zachary Yaro <zm...@gmail.com>.
I am excited to see all this. It is unlikely I can join the call during
work hours—is there any chance it could be recorded (e.g., done as a
Hangout On Air) so I can catch up later?
Thank you,
Zachary Yaro
On Sep 5, 2016 11:16, "Adam John" <aj...@sterlingsolved.com> wrote:
> @pablo that is great that you are working with the Complutense University
> of Madrid! ... I'm adding an agenda item to give you a chance to talk about
> the results of the contest if that is okay?
>
> If we can make progress on the peer review before the meeting, that would
> be great as well.. also added a discussion item to the agenda for it. (
> https://github.com/Waqee/incubator-wave)
>
> ---
>
> @andreas awesome, I've added you to the informal attendees list.
>
> Since Docker and Kubernetes both use Golang, I've been toying with them
> lately as well. This highlights one of my earlier point about making
> adjustments to this project that will best leverage other open source work.
>
> I had not found SOLID yet, but quick review and it seems intriguing... it
> is related to good+interesting W3C work (https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-primer/
> )
>
> ---
>
> @all ... I'll be starting 2 new threads, this one goes well beyond
> 'Retirement' imho
> Please join them as you deem appropriate.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Adam John
> (914) 623-8433
> Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <http://mradamjohn.com/
> >
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Andreas Kotes <
> count-apache.org@flatline.de>
> wrote:
>
> > hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:08:23AM +0200, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
> > > Server folk get that gwt away from me!
> > > Gwt folk; get that server stuff away from me!
> >
> > everyone, get that Java away from me ;)
> >
> > *sigh* .. I've noticed that I've been moving on - towards Golang-based
> > stuff.
> >
> > btw, you've see https://github.com/solid/solid ?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > count
> >
> > P.S: I hope to be able to make it on the 28th ..
> >
> > --
> > Andreas 'count' Kotes
> > Taming computers for humans since 1990.
> > "Don't ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do
> > it.
> > Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." -- Howard
> > Thurman
> >
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Adam John <aj...@sterlingsolved.com>.
@pablo that is great that you are working with the Complutense University
of Madrid! ... I'm adding an agenda item to give you a chance to talk about
the results of the contest if that is okay?
If we can make progress on the peer review before the meeting, that would
be great as well.. also added a discussion item to the agenda for it. (
https://github.com/Waqee/incubator-wave)
---
@andreas awesome, I've added you to the informal attendees list.
Since Docker and Kubernetes both use Golang, I've been toying with them
lately as well. This highlights one of my earlier point about making
adjustments to this project that will best leverage other open source work.
I had not found SOLID yet, but quick review and it seems intriguing... it
is related to good+interesting W3C work (https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-primer/)
---
@all ... I'll be starting 2 new threads, this one goes well beyond
'Retirement' imho
Please join them as you deem appropriate.
Thanks!
Adam John
(914) 623-8433
Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <http://mradamjohn.com/>
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Andreas Kotes <co...@flatline.de>
wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:08:23AM +0200, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
> > Server folk get that gwt away from me!
> > Gwt folk; get that server stuff away from me!
>
> everyone, get that Java away from me ;)
>
> *sigh* .. I've noticed that I've been moving on - towards Golang-based
> stuff.
>
> btw, you've see https://github.com/solid/solid ?
>
> Cheers,
>
> count
>
> P.S: I hope to be able to make it on the 28th ..
>
> --
> Andreas 'count' Kotes
> Taming computers for humans since 1990.
> "Don't ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do
> it.
> Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." -- Howard
> Thurman
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Andreas Kotes <co...@flatline.de>.
hi,
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:08:23AM +0200, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
> Server folk get that gwt away from me!
> Gwt folk; get that server stuff away from me!
everyone, get that Java away from me ;)
*sigh* .. I've noticed that I've been moving on - towards Golang-based
stuff.
btw, you've see https://github.com/solid/solid ?
Cheers,
count
P.S: I hope to be able to make it on the 28th ..
--
Andreas 'count' Kotes
Taming computers for humans since 1990.
"Don't ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it.
Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." -- Howard Thurman
Re: Retirement
Posted by Adam John <aj...@sterlingsolved.com>.
This is great information, Price ... thanks.
I also discovered some background info on Jon Leongs site, thanks for that
Jon. (go RIT!)
A quick skim and I really appreciate what Evan put together... this is very
good information and quite in line with what I had been working toward
documenting myself.
(as an aside, thanks Evan for the Gradle conversion!)
RE: Upayavira - you mentioned GitHub or I wouldn't have done that. The Org
is renamed, https://github.com/anotherWave where forks are also now
present...
Look - we all float in and out of projects like this, based on time and
opportunity. It is normal, expected, and adds value for reasons I'd be
happy to go into over a beer. ;)
We have "the will" in this community, and in my opinion where there is a
will - *there is a way*.
Perhaps a good next step is a conference call / Google hangout?
In order to allow time for the list to react/plan, I suggest 2 weeks from
now:
*Wednesday September 14 at 10:00am EST*
Please suggest alternate times / dates if needed... just putting a mark on
the wall here...
Thanks, all!
AJ
Adam John
(914) 623-8433
Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <http://mradamjohn.com/>
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Price Clark <gp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just wanted to say I'm another (albeit young) developer that would be
> really sad if the project died. I've also tried several times to do
> different things to the project e.g. tackling some bugs I found filed from
> long ago but had little luck.... and eventually stopped because it wasn't
> very clear to me where the project was going or what work needed doing
> most. It seems like a conference, as Adam John was saying, might help
> people interested currently to talk to actual committers about what they
> are trying to do/what needs to be done.
>
> A while back Evan converted the project to Gradle and that was immensely
> helpful and probably in the spirit of the kind of work that makes
> onboarding easier. He also put out a plan of action about the sorts of
> things that needed doing
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YnhcupFtReZyq5Y5QheIbYFO2epEh
> XGucNZE04r_oA4/edit,
> which seems like another good place to start. On that note would more work
> in the docker realm (once again, as Adam John was saying) with good
> instructions on the http://incubator.apache.org/wave/get-involved.html
> page help lower friction even more to getting involved? While it's not
> glitzy I would definitely be willing to spend time with Greg Cochard and
> Jonathan Leong into making some of that happen as I know that is exactly
> the kind of work that would make me much more inclined/able to spend free
> time working on the project.
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Upayavira <uv...@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 <da...@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> > aj@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" <
> zmyaro@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" <
> > darkflame@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.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> >
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Price Clark <gp...@gmail.com>.
Just wanted to say I'm another (albeit young) developer that would be
really sad if the project died. I've also tried several times to do
different things to the project e.g. tackling some bugs I found filed from
long ago but had little luck.... and eventually stopped because it wasn't
very clear to me where the project was going or what work needed doing
most. It seems like a conference, as Adam John was saying, might help
people interested currently to talk to actual committers about what they
are trying to do/what needs to be done.
A while back Evan converted the project to Gradle and that was immensely
helpful and probably in the spirit of the kind of work that makes
onboarding easier. He also put out a plan of action about the sorts of
things that needed doing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YnhcupFtReZyq5Y5QheIbYFO2epEhXGucNZE04r_oA4/edit,
which seems like another good place to start. On that note would more work
in the docker realm (once again, as Adam John was saying) with good
instructions on the http://incubator.apache.org/wave/get-involved.html
page help lower friction even more to getting involved? While it's not
glitzy I would definitely be willing to spend time with Greg Cochard and
Jonathan Leong into making some of that happen as I know that is exactly
the kind of work that would make me much more inclined/able to spend free
time working on the project.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Upayavira <uv...@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 <da...@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> aj@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" <zm...@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" <
> darkflame@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.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Jonathan Leong <jo...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for organizing Adam. That date /time is good. Looking forward to
meeting everyone.
On Aug 31, 2016 9:59 AM, "Adam John" <aj...@sterlingsolved.com> wrote:
> This is great thinking, Thomas!
>
> Can we use the Google Doc and add your thoughts there?
> Or a copy of it?
> I think email is great and all, but a Google Doc is a suitable Wave
> substitute for this work since in the end what I think we want here is A
> Plan.
>
> These are all excellent questions and worth proper discussion.
>
> 100%: small manageable steps.
>
> Any thoughts on a call / hangout to work things out?
>
> Requested attendees:
>
> 1. Greg Cochard
> 2. Jonathan Leong
> 3. Price Clark
> 4. Thomas Wrobel
> 5. Evan Hughes
> 6. *Everyone on this list!*
>
> ;)
>
> Thanks, again...
>
> AJ
>
> Adam John
> (914) 623-8433
> Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <http://mradamjohn.com/>
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Thomas Wrobel <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > ""an entirely new Wave codebase""
> >
> > Or even the first building block that would become that.
> > If wave goal is defined as something like, "some sort of open
> > federated protocol to selectively share informative securely between
> > users"
> >
> > Would the first steps be too;
> > a) define how data is synced between servers.Presumably from
> > exchanging the changes.
> > i) OT still I assume?
> > b) define how data is synced between clients.Presumably from
> > exchanging the changes.
> > i) OT again? maybe closely related to above?
> > c) How to identify users? (existing standard usable here?)
> >
> > d) Then start implementation of a reference server.
> > e) Then start implementation of a completely separated reference client.
> > f) THEN work on user interface aspects of the (various!) clients.
> >
> > This is all just spitballing. Feel free to put yay, nay or "hell no"
> > next to any of the above.
> > I just think if there is _any_ hope to survive outside apache we need
> > small, manageable steps - hopefully each one useful in itself.
> >
> > --
> > http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
> > http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator.
> >
> >
> > On 31 August 2016 at 13:53, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Adam,
> > >
> > > Whilst I appreciate that you are trying to help with the ApacheWave
> > > repos, I really don't want us to go that way. Wave is already available
> > > on Github as https://github.com/apache/incubator-wave. If this project
> > > folds, and the code goes to live on on github, it must be called
> > > something other than *apache* wave, as to call it Apache XYZ would be a
> > > misuse of a trademark.
> > >
> > > Let's decide whether or not the project continues here, and if it
> > > doesn't, then we'll discuss what happens with the various parts of the
> > > project once that decision is made.
> > >
> > > I still think that the best course of action is for a few people to get
> > > together and produce an entirely new Wave codebase. We've tried, and
> > > failed with the codebase we have.
> > >
> > > Upayavira
> > >
> > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, at 08:25 AM, 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 <uv...@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 <
> darkflame@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> > >> > aj@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" <
> > zmyaro@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" <
> > >> > darkflame@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.
> > >> > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > >> >
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> >
> >
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Thomas Wrobel <da...@gmail.com>.
Server folk get that gwt away from me!
Gwt folk; get that server stuff away from me!
:P
--
http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator.
On 1 September 2016 at 02:40, Evan Hughes <eh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In regards to the meeting, please let us know how it goes ill be unable to
> attend due to my current uni workload (exams and assignments are
> everywhere).
>
> In regards with starting from scratch, I did purpose this idea before hand
> but it is 3 large scale projects on its own, Wave is an interesting project
> in the sense that you have to build most of the entire ecosystem it runs
> on, whether that be a multiuser text editor (for any platform) and an OT
> transform layer that sits below it. Then below those layers sits the server
> which relies on the specs of the Schema's (Document, Conversation, ....).
>
> I believe the current issue with the projects "complexity" is more the
> front end bits which clutter the source, and there is multiple places it
> lives and the dependence issues gwt brings in before the new current
> version (not saying its great but its getting their). Being that this is
> apache, most devs are java devs which arnt the best in front end
> development, sure gwt is great but let it live completely differnt source
> tree so the server can sit by itself, but that means recreating the
> multi-user OT editor which no one so far wants to touch because like the
> people at GitHub have found its very hard to optimise an editor and
> generally using a non native language you are limited in your optimisations.
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
> ~ Evan
>
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 at 09:46 Benjamin B. <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'll do my best to attend this meeting. It will be nice to see and discuss
>> the plan, and from it, see where I can help :)
>>
>> But I agree with Zachary, restarting from zero might not be a good idea..
>>
>> 2016-08-31 16:58 GMT+02:00 Michael MacFadden <michael.macfadden@gmail.com
>> >:
>>
>> > Adam,
>> >
>> > Thanks. I would love to brain stole with you all.
>> > .
>> >
>> > ~Michael
>> >
>> > > On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:58 AM, Adam John <aj...@sterlingsolved.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > This is great thinking, Thomas!
>> > >
>> > > Can we use the Google Doc and add your thoughts there?
>> > > Or a copy of it?
>> > > I think email is great and all, but a Google Doc is a suitable Wave
>> > > substitute for this work since in the end what I think we want here is
>> A
>> > > Plan.
>> > >
>> > > These are all excellent questions and worth proper discussion.
>> > >
>> > > 100%: small manageable steps.
>> > >
>> > > Any thoughts on a call / hangout to work things out?
>> > >
>> > > Requested attendees:
>> > >
>> > > 1. Greg Cochard
>> > > 2. Jonathan Leong
>> > > 3. Price Clark
>> > > 4. Thomas Wrobel
>> > > 5. Evan Hughes
>> > > 6. *Everyone on this list!*
>> > >
>> > > ;)
>> > >
>> > > Thanks, again...
>> > >
>> > > AJ
>> > >
>> > > Adam John
>> > > (914) 623-8433
>> > > Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <
>> > http://mradamjohn.com/>
>> > >
>> > >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Thomas Wrobel <da...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> ""an entirely new Wave codebase""
>> > >>
>> > >> Or even the first building block that would become that.
>> > >> If wave goal is defined as something like, "some sort of open
>> > >> federated protocol to selectively share informative securely between
>> > >> users"
>> > >>
>> > >> Would the first steps be too;
>> > >> a) define how data is synced between servers.Presumably from
>> > >> exchanging the changes.
>> > >> i) OT still I assume?
>> > >> b) define how data is synced between clients.Presumably from
>> > >> exchanging the changes.
>> > >> i) OT again? maybe closely related to above?
>> > >> c) How to identify users? (existing standard usable here?)
>> > >>
>> > >> d) Then start implementation of a reference server.
>> > >> e) Then start implementation of a completely separated reference
>> client.
>> > >> f) THEN work on user interface aspects of the (various!) clients.
>> > >>
>> > >> This is all just spitballing. Feel free to put yay, nay or "hell no"
>> > >> next to any of the above.
>> > >> I just think if there is _any_ hope to survive outside apache we need
>> > >> small, manageable steps - hopefully each one useful in itself.
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
>> > >> http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>> On 31 August 2016 at 13:53, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>> > >>> Adam,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Whilst I appreciate that you are trying to help with the ApacheWave
>> > >>> repos, I really don't want us to go that way. Wave is already
>> available
>> > >>> on Github as https://github.com/apache/incubator-wave. If this
>> project
>> > >>> folds, and the code goes to live on on github, it must be called
>> > >>> something other than *apache* wave, as to call it Apache XYZ would
>> be a
>> > >>> misuse of a trademark.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Let's decide whether or not the project continues here, and if it
>> > >>> doesn't, then we'll discuss what happens with the various parts of
>> the
>> > >>> project once that decision is made.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I still think that the best course of action is for a few people to
>> get
>> > >>> together and produce an entirely new Wave codebase. We've tried, and
>> > >>> failed with the codebase we have.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Upayavira
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, at 08:25 AM, 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 <uv...@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 <
>> darkflame@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
>> > >>>>> aj@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" <
>> > >> zmyaro@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" <
>> > >>>>> darkflame@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.
>> > >>
>> >
>>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Evan Hughes <eh...@gmail.com>.
In regards to the meeting, please let us know how it goes ill be unable to
attend due to my current uni workload (exams and assignments are
everywhere).
In regards with starting from scratch, I did purpose this idea before hand
but it is 3 large scale projects on its own, Wave is an interesting project
in the sense that you have to build most of the entire ecosystem it runs
on, whether that be a multiuser text editor (for any platform) and an OT
transform layer that sits below it. Then below those layers sits the server
which relies on the specs of the Schema's (Document, Conversation, ....).
I believe the current issue with the projects "complexity" is more the
front end bits which clutter the source, and there is multiple places it
lives and the dependence issues gwt brings in before the new current
version (not saying its great but its getting their). Being that this is
apache, most devs are java devs which arnt the best in front end
development, sure gwt is great but let it live completely differnt source
tree so the server can sit by itself, but that means recreating the
multi-user OT editor which no one so far wants to touch because like the
people at GitHub have found its very hard to optimise an editor and
generally using a non native language you are limited in your optimisations.
Just my thoughts.
~ Evan
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 at 09:46 Benjamin B. <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll do my best to attend this meeting. It will be nice to see and discuss
> the plan, and from it, see where I can help :)
>
> But I agree with Zachary, restarting from zero might not be a good idea..
>
> 2016-08-31 16:58 GMT+02:00 Michael MacFadden <michael.macfadden@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Adam,
> >
> > Thanks. I would love to brain stole with you all.
> > .
> >
> > ~Michael
> >
> > > On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:58 AM, Adam John <aj...@sterlingsolved.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is great thinking, Thomas!
> > >
> > > Can we use the Google Doc and add your thoughts there?
> > > Or a copy of it?
> > > I think email is great and all, but a Google Doc is a suitable Wave
> > > substitute for this work since in the end what I think we want here is
> A
> > > Plan.
> > >
> > > These are all excellent questions and worth proper discussion.
> > >
> > > 100%: small manageable steps.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts on a call / hangout to work things out?
> > >
> > > Requested attendees:
> > >
> > > 1. Greg Cochard
> > > 2. Jonathan Leong
> > > 3. Price Clark
> > > 4. Thomas Wrobel
> > > 5. Evan Hughes
> > > 6. *Everyone on this list!*
> > >
> > > ;)
> > >
> > > Thanks, again...
> > >
> > > AJ
> > >
> > > Adam John
> > > (914) 623-8433
> > > Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <
> > http://mradamjohn.com/>
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Thomas Wrobel <da...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> ""an entirely new Wave codebase""
> > >>
> > >> Or even the first building block that would become that.
> > >> If wave goal is defined as something like, "some sort of open
> > >> federated protocol to selectively share informative securely between
> > >> users"
> > >>
> > >> Would the first steps be too;
> > >> a) define how data is synced between servers.Presumably from
> > >> exchanging the changes.
> > >> i) OT still I assume?
> > >> b) define how data is synced between clients.Presumably from
> > >> exchanging the changes.
> > >> i) OT again? maybe closely related to above?
> > >> c) How to identify users? (existing standard usable here?)
> > >>
> > >> d) Then start implementation of a reference server.
> > >> e) Then start implementation of a completely separated reference
> client.
> > >> f) THEN work on user interface aspects of the (various!) clients.
> > >>
> > >> This is all just spitballing. Feel free to put yay, nay or "hell no"
> > >> next to any of the above.
> > >> I just think if there is _any_ hope to survive outside apache we need
> > >> small, manageable steps - hopefully each one useful in itself.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
> > >> http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On 31 August 2016 at 13:53, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> > >>> Adam,
> > >>>
> > >>> Whilst I appreciate that you are trying to help with the ApacheWave
> > >>> repos, I really don't want us to go that way. Wave is already
> available
> > >>> on Github as https://github.com/apache/incubator-wave. If this
> project
> > >>> folds, and the code goes to live on on github, it must be called
> > >>> something other than *apache* wave, as to call it Apache XYZ would
> be a
> > >>> misuse of a trademark.
> > >>>
> > >>> Let's decide whether or not the project continues here, and if it
> > >>> doesn't, then we'll discuss what happens with the various parts of
> the
> > >>> project once that decision is made.
> > >>>
> > >>> I still think that the best course of action is for a few people to
> get
> > >>> together and produce an entirely new Wave codebase. We've tried, and
> > >>> failed with the codebase we have.
> > >>>
> > >>> Upayavira
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, at 08:25 AM, 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 <uv...@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 <
> darkflame@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> > >>>>> aj@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" <
> > >> zmyaro@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" <
> > >>>>> darkflame@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.
> > >>
> >
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by "Benjamin B." <wi...@gmail.com>.
I'll do my best to attend this meeting. It will be nice to see and discuss
the plan, and from it, see where I can help :)
But I agree with Zachary, restarting from zero might not be a good idea..
2016-08-31 16:58 GMT+02:00 Michael MacFadden <mi...@gmail.com>:
> Adam,
>
> Thanks. I would love to brain stole with you all.
> .
>
> ~Michael
>
> > On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:58 AM, Adam John <aj...@sterlingsolved.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is great thinking, Thomas!
> >
> > Can we use the Google Doc and add your thoughts there?
> > Or a copy of it?
> > I think email is great and all, but a Google Doc is a suitable Wave
> > substitute for this work since in the end what I think we want here is A
> > Plan.
> >
> > These are all excellent questions and worth proper discussion.
> >
> > 100%: small manageable steps.
> >
> > Any thoughts on a call / hangout to work things out?
> >
> > Requested attendees:
> >
> > 1. Greg Cochard
> > 2. Jonathan Leong
> > 3. Price Clark
> > 4. Thomas Wrobel
> > 5. Evan Hughes
> > 6. *Everyone on this list!*
> >
> > ;)
> >
> > Thanks, again...
> >
> > AJ
> >
> > Adam John
> > (914) 623-8433
> > Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <
> http://mradamjohn.com/>
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Thomas Wrobel <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> ""an entirely new Wave codebase""
> >>
> >> Or even the first building block that would become that.
> >> If wave goal is defined as something like, "some sort of open
> >> federated protocol to selectively share informative securely between
> >> users"
> >>
> >> Would the first steps be too;
> >> a) define how data is synced between servers.Presumably from
> >> exchanging the changes.
> >> i) OT still I assume?
> >> b) define how data is synced between clients.Presumably from
> >> exchanging the changes.
> >> i) OT again? maybe closely related to above?
> >> c) How to identify users? (existing standard usable here?)
> >>
> >> d) Then start implementation of a reference server.
> >> e) Then start implementation of a completely separated reference client.
> >> f) THEN work on user interface aspects of the (various!) clients.
> >>
> >> This is all just spitballing. Feel free to put yay, nay or "hell no"
> >> next to any of the above.
> >> I just think if there is _any_ hope to survive outside apache we need
> >> small, manageable steps - hopefully each one useful in itself.
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
> >> http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator.
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 31 August 2016 at 13:53, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> Adam,
> >>>
> >>> Whilst I appreciate that you are trying to help with the ApacheWave
> >>> repos, I really don't want us to go that way. Wave is already available
> >>> on Github as https://github.com/apache/incubator-wave. If this project
> >>> folds, and the code goes to live on on github, it must be called
> >>> something other than *apache* wave, as to call it Apache XYZ would be a
> >>> misuse of a trademark.
> >>>
> >>> Let's decide whether or not the project continues here, and if it
> >>> doesn't, then we'll discuss what happens with the various parts of the
> >>> project once that decision is made.
> >>>
> >>> I still think that the best course of action is for a few people to get
> >>> together and produce an entirely new Wave codebase. We've tried, and
> >>> failed with the codebase we have.
> >>>
> >>> Upayavira
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, at 08:25 AM, 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 <uv...@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 <darkflame@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> >>>>> aj@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" <
> >> zmyaro@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" <
> >>>>> darkflame@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.
> >>
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Michael MacFadden <mi...@gmail.com>.
Adam,
Thanks. I would love to brain stole with you all.
.
~Michael
> On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:58 AM, Adam John <aj...@sterlingsolved.com> wrote:
>
> This is great thinking, Thomas!
>
> Can we use the Google Doc and add your thoughts there?
> Or a copy of it?
> I think email is great and all, but a Google Doc is a suitable Wave
> substitute for this work since in the end what I think we want here is A
> Plan.
>
> These are all excellent questions and worth proper discussion.
>
> 100%: small manageable steps.
>
> Any thoughts on a call / hangout to work things out?
>
> Requested attendees:
>
> 1. Greg Cochard
> 2. Jonathan Leong
> 3. Price Clark
> 4. Thomas Wrobel
> 5. Evan Hughes
> 6. *Everyone on this list!*
>
> ;)
>
> Thanks, again...
>
> AJ
>
> Adam John
> (914) 623-8433
> Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <http://mradamjohn.com/>
>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Thomas Wrobel <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ""an entirely new Wave codebase""
>>
>> Or even the first building block that would become that.
>> If wave goal is defined as something like, "some sort of open
>> federated protocol to selectively share informative securely between
>> users"
>>
>> Would the first steps be too;
>> a) define how data is synced between servers.Presumably from
>> exchanging the changes.
>> i) OT still I assume?
>> b) define how data is synced between clients.Presumably from
>> exchanging the changes.
>> i) OT again? maybe closely related to above?
>> c) How to identify users? (existing standard usable here?)
>>
>> d) Then start implementation of a reference server.
>> e) Then start implementation of a completely separated reference client.
>> f) THEN work on user interface aspects of the (various!) clients.
>>
>> This is all just spitballing. Feel free to put yay, nay or "hell no"
>> next to any of the above.
>> I just think if there is _any_ hope to survive outside apache we need
>> small, manageable steps - hopefully each one useful in itself.
>>
>> --
>> http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
>> http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator.
>>
>>
>>> On 31 August 2016 at 13:53, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Adam,
>>>
>>> Whilst I appreciate that you are trying to help with the ApacheWave
>>> repos, I really don't want us to go that way. Wave is already available
>>> on Github as https://github.com/apache/incubator-wave. If this project
>>> folds, and the code goes to live on on github, it must be called
>>> something other than *apache* wave, as to call it Apache XYZ would be a
>>> misuse of a trademark.
>>>
>>> Let's decide whether or not the project continues here, and if it
>>> doesn't, then we'll discuss what happens with the various parts of the
>>> project once that decision is made.
>>>
>>> I still think that the best course of action is for a few people to get
>>> together and produce an entirely new Wave codebase. We've tried, and
>>> failed with the codebase we have.
>>>
>>> Upayavira
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, at 08:25 AM, 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 <uv...@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 <darkflame@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
>>>>> aj@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" <
>> zmyaro@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" <
>>>>> darkflame@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.
>>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Adam John <aj...@sterlingsolved.com>.
This is great thinking, Thomas!
Can we use the Google Doc and add your thoughts there?
Or a copy of it?
I think email is great and all, but a Google Doc is a suitable Wave
substitute for this work since in the end what I think we want here is A
Plan.
These are all excellent questions and worth proper discussion.
100%: small manageable steps.
Any thoughts on a call / hangout to work things out?
Requested attendees:
1. Greg Cochard
2. Jonathan Leong
3. Price Clark
4. Thomas Wrobel
5. Evan Hughes
6. *Everyone on this list!*
;)
Thanks, again...
AJ
Adam John
(914) 623-8433
Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <http://mradamjohn.com/>
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Thomas Wrobel <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ""an entirely new Wave codebase""
>
> Or even the first building block that would become that.
> If wave goal is defined as something like, "some sort of open
> federated protocol to selectively share informative securely between
> users"
>
> Would the first steps be too;
> a) define how data is synced between servers.Presumably from
> exchanging the changes.
> i) OT still I assume?
> b) define how data is synced between clients.Presumably from
> exchanging the changes.
> i) OT again? maybe closely related to above?
> c) How to identify users? (existing standard usable here?)
>
> d) Then start implementation of a reference server.
> e) Then start implementation of a completely separated reference client.
> f) THEN work on user interface aspects of the (various!) clients.
>
> This is all just spitballing. Feel free to put yay, nay or "hell no"
> next to any of the above.
> I just think if there is _any_ hope to survive outside apache we need
> small, manageable steps - hopefully each one useful in itself.
>
> --
> http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
> http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator.
>
>
> On 31 August 2016 at 13:53, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> > Adam,
> >
> > Whilst I appreciate that you are trying to help with the ApacheWave
> > repos, I really don't want us to go that way. Wave is already available
> > on Github as https://github.com/apache/incubator-wave. If this project
> > folds, and the code goes to live on on github, it must be called
> > something other than *apache* wave, as to call it Apache XYZ would be a
> > misuse of a trademark.
> >
> > Let's decide whether or not the project continues here, and if it
> > doesn't, then we'll discuss what happens with the various parts of the
> > project once that decision is made.
> >
> > I still think that the best course of action is for a few people to get
> > together and produce an entirely new Wave codebase. We've tried, and
> > failed with the codebase we have.
> >
> > Upayavira
> >
> > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, at 08:25 AM, 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 <uv...@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 <darkflame@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> >> > aj@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" <
> zmyaro@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" <
> >> > darkflame@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.
> >> > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> >
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Zachary Yaro <zm...@gmail.com>.
I think these are good priorities, as the open protocol is the #1 advantage
Wave has over other real-time communication platforms. Rewriting the
protocol could even open the door for algorithms developed since the
original OT Wave protocol (IIRC, Joseph Gentle suggested as much a few
years back).
That said, the original Google Wave took two years to develop with a full
dev team and support from a large corporation. I am concerned restarting
from zero might not be as feasible with the small team we have here.
Zachary Yaro
On Aug 31, 2016 09:47, "Thomas Wrobel" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ""an entirely new Wave codebase""
>
> Or even the first building block that would become that.
> If wave goal is defined as something like, "some sort of open
> federated protocol to selectively share informative securely between
> users"
>
> Would the first steps be too;
> a) define how data is synced between servers.Presumably from
> exchanging the changes.
> i) OT still I assume?
> b) define how data is synced between clients.Presumably from
> exchanging the changes.
> i) OT again? maybe closely related to above?
> c) How to identify users? (existing standard usable here?)
>
> d) Then start implementation of a reference server.
> e) Then start implementation of a completely separated reference client.
> f) THEN work on user interface aspects of the (various!) clients.
>
> This is all just spitballing. Feel free to put yay, nay or "hell no"
> next to any of the above.
> I just think if there is _any_ hope to survive outside apache we need
> small, manageable steps - hopefully each one useful in itself.
>
> --
> http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
> http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator.
>
>
> On 31 August 2016 at 13:53, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> > Adam,
> >
> > Whilst I appreciate that you are trying to help with the ApacheWave
> > repos, I really don't want us to go that way. Wave is already available
> > on Github as https://github.com/apache/incubator-wave. If this project
> > folds, and the code goes to live on on github, it must be called
> > something other than *apache* wave, as to call it Apache XYZ would be a
> > misuse of a trademark.
> >
> > Let's decide whether or not the project continues here, and if it
> > doesn't, then we'll discuss what happens with the various parts of the
> > project once that decision is made.
> >
> > I still think that the best course of action is for a few people to get
> > together and produce an entirely new Wave codebase. We've tried, and
> > failed with the codebase we have.
> >
> > Upayavira
> >
> > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, at 08:25 AM, 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 <uv...@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 <darkflame@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> >> > aj@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" <
> zmyaro@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" <
> >> > darkflame@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.
> >> > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> >
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Thomas Wrobel <da...@gmail.com>.
""an entirely new Wave codebase""
Or even the first building block that would become that.
If wave goal is defined as something like, "some sort of open
federated protocol to selectively share informative securely between
users"
Would the first steps be too;
a) define how data is synced between servers.Presumably from
exchanging the changes.
i) OT still I assume?
b) define how data is synced between clients.Presumably from
exchanging the changes.
i) OT again? maybe closely related to above?
c) How to identify users? (existing standard usable here?)
d) Then start implementation of a reference server.
e) Then start implementation of a completely separated reference client.
f) THEN work on user interface aspects of the (various!) clients.
This is all just spitballing. Feel free to put yay, nay or "hell no"
next to any of the above.
I just think if there is _any_ hope to survive outside apache we need
small, manageable steps - hopefully each one useful in itself.
--
http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator.
On 31 August 2016 at 13:53, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> Adam,
>
> Whilst I appreciate that you are trying to help with the ApacheWave
> repos, I really don't want us to go that way. Wave is already available
> on Github as https://github.com/apache/incubator-wave. If this project
> folds, and the code goes to live on on github, it must be called
> something other than *apache* wave, as to call it Apache XYZ would be a
> misuse of a trademark.
>
> Let's decide whether or not the project continues here, and if it
> doesn't, then we'll discuss what happens with the various parts of the
> project once that decision is made.
>
> I still think that the best course of action is for a few people to get
> together and produce an entirely new Wave codebase. We've tried, and
> failed with the codebase we have.
>
> Upayavira
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, at 08:25 AM, 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 <uv...@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 <da...@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
>> > aj@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" <zm...@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" <
>> > darkflame@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.
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> >
Re: Retirement
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Adam,
Whilst I appreciate that you are trying to help with the ApacheWave
repos, I really don't want us to go that way. Wave is already available
on Github as https://github.com/apache/incubator-wave. If this project
folds, and the code goes to live on on github, it must be called
something other than *apache* wave, as to call it Apache XYZ would be a
misuse of a trademark.
Let's decide whether or not the project continues here, and if it
doesn't, then we'll discuss what happens with the various parts of the
project once that decision is made.
I still think that the best course of action is for a few people to get
together and produce an entirely new Wave codebase. We've tried, and
failed with the codebase we have.
Upayavira
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, at 08:25 AM, 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 <uv...@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 <da...@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> > aj@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" <zm...@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" <
> > darkflame@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.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> >
Re: Retirement
Posted by Yuri Z <ve...@gmail.com>.
I think that bringing swellrt into Apache will be beneficial for both
projects. Apache will gain active developers and momentum while swellrt
will get the additional recognition.
Moreover, swellrt developers can become Apache Wave committers - I think
Pablo is already committer.
I think that the API approach is sensible, and there will be no issues for
the broad Apache wave community on accepting this direction.
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:22 PM Thomas Wrobel <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 September 2016 at 17:04, Pablo Ojanguren <pa...@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. <wa...@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 <aj...@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 <uv...@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 <
> darkflame@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> >> >> aj@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" <
> >> zmyaro@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" <
> >> >> darkflame@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.
> >> >> > > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >>
> >>
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Pablo Ojanguren <pa...@gmail.com>.
@adam 28th is perfect. thanks a lot for changing the date.
@yuri thanks for your words.
I look forward to discuss the fusion of the projects. In the meantime, I
will happy to clarify any point about SwellRT. I guess the more info for
the Wave community the better.
2016-09-03 18:44 GMT+02:00 Michael MacFadden <mi...@gmail.com>:
> 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" <aj...@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 <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 1 September 2016 at 17:04, Pablo Ojanguren <pa...@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. <wa...@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 <
> aj@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 <uv...@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 <
> > darkflame@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> > >> >> aj@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" <
> > >> zmyaro@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" <
> > >> >> darkflame@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.
> > >> >> > > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Pablo Ojanguren <pa...@gmail.com>.
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 <jo...@gmail.com>:
> The 28th works for me
>
> On Sep 4, 2016 1:40 PM, "Greg Cochard" <gr...@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.macfadden@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" <aj...@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 <darkflame@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 1 September 2016 at 17:04, Pablo Ojanguren <
> pablojan@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. <wa...@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 <
> > > aj@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 <uv...@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 <
> > > > darkflame@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> > > > >> >> aj@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" <
> > > > >> zmyaro@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" <
> > > > >> >> darkflame@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.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Jonathan Leong <jo...@gmail.com>.
The 28th works for me
On Sep 4, 2016 1:40 PM, "Greg Cochard" <gr...@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.macfadden@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" <aj...@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 <da...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 1 September 2016 at 17:04, Pablo Ojanguren <pa...@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. <wa...@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 <
> > aj@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 <uv...@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 <
> > > darkflame@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> > > >> >> aj@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" <
> > > >> zmyaro@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" <
> > > >> >> darkflame@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.
> > > >> >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >>
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Greg Cochard <gr...@gmail.com>.
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 <mi...@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" <aj...@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/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 <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 1 September 2016 at 17:04, Pablo Ojanguren <pa...@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. <wa...@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 <
> aj@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 <uv...@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 <
> > darkflame@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> > >> >> aj@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" <
> > >> zmyaro@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" <
> > >> >> darkflame@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.
> > >> >> > > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Michael MacFadden <mi...@gmail.com>.
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" <aj...@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/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 <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 September 2016 at 17:04, Pablo Ojanguren <pa...@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. <wa...@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 <aj...@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 <uv...@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 <
> darkflame@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> >> >> aj@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" <
> >> zmyaro@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" <
> >> >> darkflame@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.
> >> >> > > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >>
> >>
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Adam John <aj...@sterlingsolved.com>.
@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 <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 September 2016 at 17:04, Pablo Ojanguren <pa...@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. <wa...@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 <aj...@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 <uv...@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 <
> darkflame@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> >> >> aj@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" <
> >> zmyaro@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" <
> >> >> darkflame@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.
> >> >> > > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >>
> >>
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Thomas Wrobel <da...@gmail.com>.
On 1 September 2016 at 17:04, Pablo Ojanguren <pa...@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. <wa...@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 <aj...@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 <uv...@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 <da...@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
>> >> aj@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" <
>> zmyaro@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" <
>> >> darkflame@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.
>> >> > > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > >
>> >>
>>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Pablo Ojanguren <pa...@gmail.com>.
I can't make it from Sept, 10th to Sept 26th.
Is there any choice to set an earlier date?
2016-09-01 18:25 GMT+02:00 Adam John <aj...@sterlingsolved.com>:
> @pablo awesome!
> @thomas lol
> @ed ... yes, switched it over to "anotherWave" for now. ;)
> Open to suggestions.
>
> Here is a link to a calendar item on the suggested date/time to discuss
> the project.
> There is a Google Hangout included for the conference.
>
> Wednesday September 14 at 10:00am EST
> (https://calendar.google.com/calendar/event?action=TEMPLATE&
> tmeid=c2dzZTBsbmQ4dGdnc3YyZzRmYWI5cDhlMGsgYWpAc3Rlcmxpbmdzb2
> x2ZWQuY29t&tmsrc=aj%40sterlingsolved.com)
>
> Lets stay open to changing the date/time until tomorrow: Friday 5pm.
>
> This way we can push the date to an evening or weekend if additional
> people can call in... but unless someone proposes another time, it isn't
> changing. ;)
>
> Thanks, and talk soon!
>
> AJ
>
> Adam John
> (914) 623-8433
> Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <http://mradamjohn.com/>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Pablo Ojanguren <pa...@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. I did
>> something analog in SwellRT, but removing all Wave's conversation stuff.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Hope it helps!
>>
>>
>> 2016-09-01 8:35 GMT+02:00 Ed - 0x1b, Inc. <wa...@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 <aj...@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 <uv...@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 <darkflame@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
>>> >> aj@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" <
>>> zmyaro@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" <
>>> >> darkflame@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.
>>> >> > > >> > > >
>>> >> > > >> > >
>>> >> > > >> >
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > >
>>> >>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Adam John <aj...@sterlingsolved.com>.
@pablo awesome!
@thomas lol
@ed ... yes, switched it over to "anotherWave" for now. ;)
Open to suggestions.
Here is a link to a calendar item on the suggested date/time to discuss the
project.
There is a Google Hangout included for the conference.
Wednesday September 14 at 10:00am EST
(https://calendar.google.com/calendar/event?action=TEMPLATE&
tmeid=c2dzZTBsbmQ4dGdnc3YyZzRmYWI5cDhlMGsgYWpAc3Rlcmxpbmdzb2
x2ZWQuY29t&tmsrc=aj%40sterlingsolved.com)
Lets stay open to changing the date/time until tomorrow: Friday 5pm.
This way we can push the date to an evening or weekend if additional people
can call in... but unless someone proposes another time, it isn't changing.
;)
Thanks, and talk soon!
AJ
Adam John
(914) 623-8433
Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn <http://mradamjohn.com/>
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Pablo Ojanguren <pa...@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. I did
> something analog in SwellRT, but removing all Wave's conversation stuff.
>
> 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.
>
> Hope it helps!
>
>
> 2016-09-01 8:35 GMT+02:00 Ed - 0x1b, Inc. <wa...@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 <aj...@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 <uv...@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 <da...@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
>> >> aj@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" <
>> zmyaro@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" <
>> >> darkflame@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.
>> >> > > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > >
>> >>
>>
>
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Pablo Ojanguren <pa...@gmail.com>.
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. I did
something analog in SwellRT, but removing all Wave's conversation stuff.
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.
Hope it helps!
2016-09-01 8:35 GMT+02:00 Ed - 0x1b, Inc. <wa...@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 <aj...@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 <uv...@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 <da...@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> >> aj@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" <
> zmyaro@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" <
> >> darkflame@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.
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >>
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by "Ed - 0x1b, Inc." <wa...@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 <aj...@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 <uv...@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 <da...@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
>> aj@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" <zm...@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" <
>> darkflame@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.
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > >
>>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Adam John <aj...@sterlingsolved.com>.
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 <uv...@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 <da...@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <
> aj@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" <zm...@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" <
> darkflame@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.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
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 <da...@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <aj...@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" <zm...@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" <da...@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.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
Re: Retirement
Posted by Taylor Fahlman <fa...@gmail.com>.
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 <da...@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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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.leong@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 <aj...@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" <zm...@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" <da...@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.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Thomas Wrobel <da...@gmail.com>.
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 <uv...@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" <ve...@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 <jo...@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 <aj...@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" <zm...@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" <da...@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.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
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" <ve...@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 <jo...@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 <aj...@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" <zm...@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" <da...@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.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Michael MacFadden <mi...@gmail.com>.
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" <ve...@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 <jo...@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 <aj...@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" <zm...@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" <da...@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.
> > >
> >
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Yuri Z <ve...@gmail.com>.
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 <jo...@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 <aj...@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" <zm...@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" <da...@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.
> > >
> >
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Jonathan Leong <jo...@gmail.com>.
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 <aj...@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" <zm...@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" <da...@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.
> >
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Adam John <aj...@sterlingsolved.com>.
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" <zm...@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" <da...@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.
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Zachary Yaro <zm...@gmail.com>.
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" <da...@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.
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Thomas Wrobel <da...@gmail.com>.
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.
Re: Retirement
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
I'd say we are EXTREMELY close to a vote for retirement. If either of
you wish to become active contributors, I'd say "just start doing it".
Don't wait for any "permission" or such. If we could get sufficient
review of your work to include it in the codebase, then maybe there
could be hope for the project at Apache. But there is very little
resource available here for reviewing your work, so we must also be
realistic.
Upayavira
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, at 05:05 PM, Greg Cochard wrote:
> I am also a cheerleader of the project and given some more time I'm sure
> I
> could become a contributor to the codebase. I have experience with
> Android,
> GWT, frontend and backend JavaScript, Python, etc.
>
> I also have ops and test automation experience so I am able to help with
> some of the less-loved aspects of the project lifecycle.
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 7:56 AM Thomas Wrobel <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Once again, a small reminder; gwt+android developer willing to work
> > client side and dedicate time to it whenever/if there ever is
> > separation of client and server.
> > I dont hold out much hope though. Many times separation has come up
> > over the last 4(?) years, and despite consensus of it being a good
> > idea it seems to much work for the precious few that know the code
> > in/out to take on. Chicken and egg....sort of.
> >
> > I still massively cheerleading wave as its still a unique project.
> > There is no "myriad competitors" - useful bits and pieces here and
> > there,sure, but no one else even aspires to federation one day. Closed
> > bespoke systems tied to single servers are still dominating. In terms
> > of successful federation the web has email/smtp, it has irc
> > and...umm...not much else.
> >
> > --
> > http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
> > http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator.
> >
> >
> > On 30 August 2016 at 16:25, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, at 06:16 AM, Bradley D. Thornton wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 8/23/2016 7:05 PM, Evan Hughes wrote:
> > >> > Hello all,
> > >> >
> > >> > Its that time of year again. Its nearing a year since retirement of
> > the
> > >> > project was brought up and it may be a good time to review the current
> > >> > situation.
> > >>
> > >> Well, not withstanding all the myriad competitors to this technology,
> > >> there are still operational sites linked to and functional from the
> > >> pages of this forum, and it appears that some development continues to
> > >> take place as well.
> > >>
> > >> Not to mention the fact that support for Wave is still needed, this list
> > >> providing that service (to some degree).
> > >>
> > >> So I think that although it may in fact be a stalled project, with very
> > >> little forward momentum or development, it is actually still quite
> > >> viable, and relevant, some commercial interests have also really done a
> > >> very nice, if not fully with a complete UI, job of deploying a unique
> > >> and good looking implementation.
> > >
> > > Bradley,
> > >
> > > The Apache Incubator is not necessarily going to be concerned with how
> > > useful or how used a technology is. The real question is whether the
> > > project is moving towards graduation from the incubator. The most
> > > noticeable aspect of this is the fact that we are *very* low on
> > > developers. The absolute minimum required by Apache would be three
> > > -people who know the code and would be willing to review a release and
> > > confirm that it both works, and meets the licensing rules specified by
> > > Apache.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the Wave project, despite all of its promise, does not
> > > appear to have managed to achieve that level of activity - despite
> > > numerous attempts to do so.
> > >
> > > If we do not hear anything convincing on this thread, I will, soon,
> > > start a vote of retirement. If there is insufficient response, that may,
> > > by itself, be sufficient for the Incubator PMC (project management
> > > committee) to retire the project.
> > >
> > > Note on retirement: This means that the community disolves as an
> > > *Apache* community. Whilst Apache retains rights to the name "Apache
> > > Wave", I cannot imagine anyone objecting to a "Wave" project being set
> > > up, e.g. on Github. So long as the terms of the Apache License V2 are
> > > honoured, it is quite acceptable for the project to continue elsewhere,
> > > where there is no particular expectation of activity level.
> > >
> > > Upayavira
> >
Re: Retirement
Posted by Greg Cochard <gr...@gmail.com>.
I am also a cheerleader of the project and given some more time I'm sure I
could become a contributor to the codebase. I have experience with Android,
GWT, frontend and backend JavaScript, Python, etc.
I also have ops and test automation experience so I am able to help with
some of the less-loved aspects of the project lifecycle.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 7:56 AM Thomas Wrobel <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Once again, a small reminder; gwt+android developer willing to work
> client side and dedicate time to it whenever/if there ever is
> separation of client and server.
> I dont hold out much hope though. Many times separation has come up
> over the last 4(?) years, and despite consensus of it being a good
> idea it seems to much work for the precious few that know the code
> in/out to take on. Chicken and egg....sort of.
>
> I still massively cheerleading wave as its still a unique project.
> There is no "myriad competitors" - useful bits and pieces here and
> there,sure, but no one else even aspires to federation one day. Closed
> bespoke systems tied to single servers are still dominating. In terms
> of successful federation the web has email/smtp, it has irc
> and...umm...not much else.
>
> --
> http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
> http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator.
>
>
> On 30 August 2016 at 16:25, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, at 06:16 AM, Bradley D. Thornton wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/23/2016 7:05 PM, Evan Hughes wrote:
> >> > Hello all,
> >> >
> >> > Its that time of year again. Its nearing a year since retirement of
> the
> >> > project was brought up and it may be a good time to review the current
> >> > situation.
> >>
> >> Well, not withstanding all the myriad competitors to this technology,
> >> there are still operational sites linked to and functional from the
> >> pages of this forum, and it appears that some development continues to
> >> take place as well.
> >>
> >> Not to mention the fact that support for Wave is still needed, this list
> >> providing that service (to some degree).
> >>
> >> So I think that although it may in fact be a stalled project, with very
> >> little forward momentum or development, it is actually still quite
> >> viable, and relevant, some commercial interests have also really done a
> >> very nice, if not fully with a complete UI, job of deploying a unique
> >> and good looking implementation.
> >
> > Bradley,
> >
> > The Apache Incubator is not necessarily going to be concerned with how
> > useful or how used a technology is. The real question is whether the
> > project is moving towards graduation from the incubator. The most
> > noticeable aspect of this is the fact that we are *very* low on
> > developers. The absolute minimum required by Apache would be three
> > -people who know the code and would be willing to review a release and
> > confirm that it both works, and meets the licensing rules specified by
> > Apache.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the Wave project, despite all of its promise, does not
> > appear to have managed to achieve that level of activity - despite
> > numerous attempts to do so.
> >
> > If we do not hear anything convincing on this thread, I will, soon,
> > start a vote of retirement. If there is insufficient response, that may,
> > by itself, be sufficient for the Incubator PMC (project management
> > committee) to retire the project.
> >
> > Note on retirement: This means that the community disolves as an
> > *Apache* community. Whilst Apache retains rights to the name "Apache
> > Wave", I cannot imagine anyone objecting to a "Wave" project being set
> > up, e.g. on Github. So long as the terms of the Apache License V2 are
> > honoured, it is quite acceptable for the project to continue elsewhere,
> > where there is no particular expectation of activity level.
> >
> > Upayavira
>
Re: Retirement
Posted by Thomas Wrobel <da...@gmail.com>.
Once again, a small reminder; gwt+android developer willing to work
client side and dedicate time to it whenever/if there ever is
separation of client and server.
I dont hold out much hope though. Many times separation has come up
over the last 4(?) years, and despite consensus of it being a good
idea it seems to much work for the precious few that know the code
in/out to take on. Chicken and egg....sort of.
I still massively cheerleading wave as its still a unique project.
There is no "myriad competitors" - useful bits and pieces here and
there,sure, but no one else even aspires to federation one day. Closed
bespoke systems tied to single servers are still dominating. In terms
of successful federation the web has email/smtp, it has irc
and...umm...not much else.
--
http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator.
On 30 August 2016 at 16:25, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, at 06:16 AM, Bradley D. Thornton wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/23/2016 7:05 PM, Evan Hughes wrote:
>> > Hello all,
>> >
>> > Its that time of year again. Its nearing a year since retirement of the
>> > project was brought up and it may be a good time to review the current
>> > situation.
>>
>> Well, not withstanding all the myriad competitors to this technology,
>> there are still operational sites linked to and functional from the
>> pages of this forum, and it appears that some development continues to
>> take place as well.
>>
>> Not to mention the fact that support for Wave is still needed, this list
>> providing that service (to some degree).
>>
>> So I think that although it may in fact be a stalled project, with very
>> little forward momentum or development, it is actually still quite
>> viable, and relevant, some commercial interests have also really done a
>> very nice, if not fully with a complete UI, job of deploying a unique
>> and good looking implementation.
>
> Bradley,
>
> The Apache Incubator is not necessarily going to be concerned with how
> useful or how used a technology is. The real question is whether the
> project is moving towards graduation from the incubator. The most
> noticeable aspect of this is the fact that we are *very* low on
> developers. The absolute minimum required by Apache would be three
> -people who know the code and would be willing to review a release and
> confirm that it both works, and meets the licensing rules specified by
> Apache.
>
> Unfortunately, the Wave project, despite all of its promise, does not
> appear to have managed to achieve that level of activity - despite
> numerous attempts to do so.
>
> If we do not hear anything convincing on this thread, I will, soon,
> start a vote of retirement. If there is insufficient response, that may,
> by itself, be sufficient for the Incubator PMC (project management
> committee) to retire the project.
>
> Note on retirement: This means that the community disolves as an
> *Apache* community. Whilst Apache retains rights to the name "Apache
> Wave", I cannot imagine anyone objecting to a "Wave" project being set
> up, e.g. on Github. So long as the terms of the Apache License V2 are
> honoured, it is quite acceptable for the project to continue elsewhere,
> where there is no particular expectation of activity level.
>
> Upayavira
Re: Retirement
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, at 06:16 AM, Bradley D. Thornton wrote:
>
>
> On 8/23/2016 7:05 PM, Evan Hughes wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Its that time of year again. Its nearing a year since retirement of the
> > project was brought up and it may be a good time to review the current
> > situation.
>
> Well, not withstanding all the myriad competitors to this technology,
> there are still operational sites linked to and functional from the
> pages of this forum, and it appears that some development continues to
> take place as well.
>
> Not to mention the fact that support for Wave is still needed, this list
> providing that service (to some degree).
>
> So I think that although it may in fact be a stalled project, with very
> little forward momentum or development, it is actually still quite
> viable, and relevant, some commercial interests have also really done a
> very nice, if not fully with a complete UI, job of deploying a unique
> and good looking implementation.
Bradley,
The Apache Incubator is not necessarily going to be concerned with how
useful or how used a technology is. The real question is whether the
project is moving towards graduation from the incubator. The most
noticeable aspect of this is the fact that we are *very* low on
developers. The absolute minimum required by Apache would be three
-people who know the code and would be willing to review a release and
confirm that it both works, and meets the licensing rules specified by
Apache.
Unfortunately, the Wave project, despite all of its promise, does not
appear to have managed to achieve that level of activity - despite
numerous attempts to do so.
If we do not hear anything convincing on this thread, I will, soon,
start a vote of retirement. If there is insufficient response, that may,
by itself, be sufficient for the Incubator PMC (project management
committee) to retire the project.
Note on retirement: This means that the community disolves as an
*Apache* community. Whilst Apache retains rights to the name "Apache
Wave", I cannot imagine anyone objecting to a "Wave" project being set
up, e.g. on Github. So long as the terms of the Apache License V2 are
honoured, it is quite acceptable for the project to continue elsewhere,
where there is no particular expectation of activity level.
Upayavira
Re: Retirement
Posted by "Bradley D. Thornton" <Br...@NorthTech.US>.
On 8/23/2016 7:05 PM, Evan Hughes wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Its that time of year again. Its nearing a year since retirement of the
> project was brought up and it may be a good time to review the current
> situation.
Well, not withstanding all the myriad competitors to this technology,
there are still operational sites linked to and functional from the
pages of this forum, and it appears that some development continues to
take place as well.
Not to mention the fact that support for Wave is still needed, this list
providing that service (to some degree).
So I think that although it may in fact be a stalled project, with very
little forward momentum or development, it is actually still quite
viable, and relevant, some commercial interests have also really done a
very nice, if not fully with a complete UI, job of deploying a unique
and good looking implementation.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus