>> WANG: This talk is not really a talk it's more of a discussion. So, this is going to
be in a sense led--started, not led but started by Dan Peterson and I. So, I encourage everybody
to sit as closely in the front row as possible because this is going to be an interactive
seminar. >> PETERSON: Seminar makes it sound very formal.
>> We can just--going to, like all come forward, so...
>> WANG: Yeah, just come forward, like... >> ...take the seats, it will be much better.
>> WANG: So, I don't actually have a lot of slides for this because the reason for that
is because... >> Oh, we're not done going forward, yet?
>> WANG: Yes, okay. Everybody move forward, move forward.
>> You might fell like, wow... >> [INDISTINCT]
>> PETERSON: I think we'll survive. People are at their power cords.
>> WANG: Yes, yes. Okay, we might have to pass the mic around. Okay, so the goal of
this session--it's not a talk, the goal of this session is really to get everybody to
participate. We want to be build essentially a wave as a community and a healthy one as
well. And this means all of us here in this room. And so, what this discussion is about
is for us to think about how wave can actually live on in this open community. So we do have
a--so Dan and I gave some initial thoughts on a proposal of how we can potentially do
this for the future. And we would like to open this up for a discussion on what is the
right thing. >> So to be clear, what's Google's involvement
going to be after the end of this year? >> WANG: It is--officially speaking, I do
not believe we have a clear statement of Google's involvement past end of this year so I can't
comment on that just yet. >> Okay.
>> WANG: It's not clear. It's not clear. It's not clear. I'll take a look.
>> Okay, the next question. >> WANG: Yes?
>> Will we have an official statement before the end of the week?
>> WANG: I might have to get back to you on that one. Okay, so.
>> PETERSON: So I think one thing that you can be confident of is that the code contributions
that have been, you know, fast and furious as of late will continue at least until the
end of the year. And I'll just let, you know, frankly we're still working at the details
for anything beyond that. But I think that the--I've been really excited to see the progress
that Wave in a Box has already made, you know, since the words "Wave in a Box" became a thing,
right? So it's been interesting. Oops. >> SOREN: But I think it's best to say that
there's tomorrow, there are a couple of things that we're going to announce and that will
I think give a clearer picture of Google's involvement for them and the lack thereof
in there. >> PETERSON: Yes, so, tomorrow morning. Soren
is just mentioning that I think there's somebody not in the room today that will be giving
a talk that is working on something and going to have an announcement in the morning that
will help make things a little bit more clearer around Google's continued involvement.
>> That's good. >> WANG: So, we do have some--so to--going
back to the discussion. We don't actually have--so we have a proposal but we don't have
a "set in stone," so we want everybody here to be able to participate. And remember this
is something that we own in this room together. Not owned by down the line, all of us here
own it. And if I could have perhaps someone in the crowd who's happy to take some notes
that'll be good, maybe you. >> PETERSON: Front row.
>> Okay. >> WANG: Yes. By the way there's actually
a link to this inside the talks wave. >> Okay.
WANG: Yes, cool. So we have a very, very--so we gave a very brief thought about what we're
going to do with how wave's going to sort of live on. And so we have a very high level
proposal. And our proposal is that let's let the code called wave live on Apache Software
Foundation; the Incubator project. I'm not sure if you guys have heard of it. I'm certainly
new to this myself. >> PETERSON: So I imagine most people are
familiar with the Apache Software Foundation. Intel's one big arm they do have is the Incubator
which is how new projects come about. >> WANG: Yes.
>> PETERSON: So the Incubator, you sort of--you get into it by you walking up with the community
in a some-cases code but not in all-cases code. In this particular case we would have
a lot of code to bring to the table which is both good and bad when you think about
it as sort of revving up new contributors on an open source project. You don't really
want the code to be perfect because that makes the bar to contributing a little bit too high.
So, luckily we do have bugs and so it's a good opportunity.
>> [INDISTINCT] >> WANG: So, pretty much you are to contain
all the code that we currently have which includes data format, federation protocol,
the client and the server, the Robot API, the gadget API, the whole lot. But before
we move on to details about Apache Software Foundation, what do people in the crowd here
think about like how we should move on? How wave should live on? Is this a good proposal,
like any other suggestions? >> Does the Incubator be constrained around
anybody building a commercial? >> PETERSON: So, no. It's a--as far as I'm
aware, no. It's--the question was does the Incubator mean that it can't be commercial.
I mean the Apache license is very much commercial-friendly so I would have a hard time thinking that
there is a contradiction there. >> WANG: Okay. It's a--John.
>> JOHN: I oppose--no, my opinion on this is that [INDISTINCT] talking about that. I'm
also an attorney and I didn't have the ability to find the list in free organization to be
able sit in, you can then, you know, have all the benefits in the recognized body IRS
can get down. They're just managing, you know, private entities, charitable entities. It
can be a real problem and it's in terms of having, you know, staff funding and that kind
of things. So, I think you're very wise to attach yourself to an existing thriving organization
so you don't have to worry about the organizational aspects and qualifications. If you want to
make donations that kind of thing, it's all there. You know it's like getting all the
hired attorney's to do that. >> PETERSON: Yes, speaking from my own experience
I can totally echo that sentiment. I helped set up the Open Social Foundation and I don't
know that I necessarily want to go through the same steps of creating a new intellectual
property, you know, oh, there's a lot of... >> JOHN: Like it's a real headache.
>> PETERSON: Right. >> JOHN: And once you it get started, it's
a [INDISTINCT] thing to maintain. >> PETERSON: Can everybody hear John in the
room? It's going to be real hard to do this over the Ustream because it's a discussion,
but was everybody able to hear that? >> It's our [INDISTINCT].
>> PETERSON: Okay, cool. All right. >> What are the other [INDISTINCT]?
>> IAN: Before the trials [INDISTINCT] method. The good thing about actually putting the
Incubator to a regular project, that actually emboldens you to have--I think it was three
in different companies and in code. So more often [INDISTINCT] a company joint [INDISTINCT]
they used for the total so you can retire and [INDISTINCT], correct?
>> PETERSON: Yes. I think if we were to go down the Apache Software and Foundation Incubator
path there are really sort of two bars that we would have to cross before we'd be able
to graduate from a top level project--to become a top level project. Number one is diversity
like Ian's getting at. And that, you know, I want to make sure that there's a broad set
of contributors that aren't just funded by one single company. Then the second one is
just managing the specifics of a release. So, I think that one is more on a technical
end of things and the former is more on the community end other things. Matt?
>> MATT: I want to know just what are the other alternatives?
>> PETERSON: Well, I think the other alternatives there's really anything under the sun, right?
But I think that we could do something where we continue down the path of having it hosted
at code.google.com and it's more ad hoc basically. I think we could also sort of the alternative
John is not supportive of, would be creating our own non-profit and coming up with a system
of governance in that model. I think the--so those are the three that come to my mind.
I don't know if there are any others. >> WANG: I mean, one of the reasons for Apache
to me--Dan and I had a talk is that Apache comes with a set of not just--much as service
or it's code repository that comes with a set of rules, governance, that's already sort
of pre-established, well proven that it works in that way. And so just by latching onto
that procedure, the process sort of, could save us a lot of like not just legality but
just effort as well, all right. >> PETERSON: Yes. Apache itself is well known
for fostering good communities who happened to build good software. And I think that's
exactly what we need here. Like, there is a fair amount of software in existence but
I think it's more important that we establish a good, strong, healthy community.
>> I guess to reiterate sort of what you're saying is by associating with Apache you give
more depth in your wave. And they go, "Oh, yeah. Apache, that's the least successful
open source project." So it's like, you know, in one cabinet I'd give them to another.
>> PETERSON: Yes, I... >> And right now the existence of...
>> PETERSON: Yeah, I think it's even more that the meritocracy culture that Apache encourages
is even more powerful than their brand because I think that it's been shown time and time
again that a great way to grow an open source project isn't just by saying, "Everybody's
now a committer," it's more of about saying, you know, "Man, I'm really sick of taking
your Apaches. You're a committer now," like--and by, "Sick of taking your Apaches," what that
means is, you've contributed three Apaches and every time it's just somebody like David
has have to look through all of them and been like, "This is just ready to go. It's perfect,"
so it's like, "Why aren't you a committer already?"
>> WANG: Right. I mean one change of mentality here, which is our next slide, are on very
high level. We noticed that right now, we--I mean Dan and I are essentially leading the
talk here, right? Because in a sense we've been doing this for wave [INDISTINCT] but
once you go to Apache, it's more like a very flat, very doatocracy system where essentially
peers make decisions, everybody make decisions. No, not just us. We're no longer--we're just
as equal as you guys. We're all equals. And all decisions I made down on the mailing list
everything's public, anyone can just use the code. You're participation in the project
is completely based on merit, or doatocracy, or that's what they call it as well. Say,
"If you can do it, hey, you have credit. You own the thing," right? That you yourself,
who are sitting in the crowd today who are just listening now becomes owners yourself.
So this is real power. And we actually want to have a varied contributors and this actually
top of the Apache process. You have to have a variety of contributors before you can actually
graduate. And you see this is not just an effort by us but--by us two here, but effort
from everybody in the crowd. And so, it can only happen if everyone in the crowed wants
to do this. >> Yeah. I was going to say, I think if I
should get great places to go and you get a lot of the graphic just by being associated
with Apache, but one of the things I've seen on a lot of the Apache incubator projects,
the ones that die are the ones that don't have a road map.
>> PETERSON: All right. >> But the in terms of, you know, the Intel
and Apache where you're in the incubators, some people would sort of know, it's not really
a mature project. And in order for that to--we've got Steve and we've got what Daryl has just
shown, this is where we are, this is where we're trying to go. And that would certainly
be an open discussion in blocks of all community. And even if you don't have that kind of a
sense it's hard for the community to rally and because you interacting with people just
by virtue of being an Incubator project, watching it comes up. It is going to be worth my time
and my [INDISTINCT]. >> PETERSON: Right, right. Yes, it's a good
reminder. I think that--I think that's speaks to two things really. One is that we'd want
to make sure the pace can stay high enough but not screamingly fast.
>> Right. >> PETERSON: But I think--because extremely
fast would scare away new contributors but then at same time, left with lots of features
that you can add to Wave in a Box. So, I think that having topics for a road map is pretty
easy to do. It will be more about who wants to build X and then put it on the road map,
basically. >> WANG: Yes.
>> Yes, and it can be as simple as, "Here's things that we've wanted for you and here's
things over the last couple of months that we have."
>> PETERSON: Yes. I think the good news is actually a lot of what we're already doing
in the community and the starter projects and things like that are reasonably similar
to just--reasonably similar to how it would be set up if we were in the Incubator land.
The biggest difference being that the code would be at apache.org instead of code.google.com
and the issue tracker too, you know, that kind of thing.
>> WANG: By the way, just to put it in more concrete terms, I think we have a Les session
here on Wednesday, two days from now. How many people actually want to actually do exactly
what you said? Let's work out a road map for this project. Who actually wants to participate?
So, I can see lots of people wants to participate. Thank you. That's great. So let's--how about
let's do slides--let's somehow--formal way we communicate after the session. How we can
like just write it on a piece of wave or document or whatever. And when we get together again
on Wednesday and talk about what a road map is and share it and get everybody's buy, because
I believe we Googler's have some idea of what we want to do before the end of the year but
I think contribution for everybody is crucial. >> PETERSON: And it's back. That's right,
sweet. VC delay or something, I don't know. Yes, so in terms of specifics on this proposal,
the Apache Incubator has like an entry process. And we--David's done a bunch of work to put
together a draft proposal which has a bunch of words that explains in Apache format basically,
you know, "Here's what we want to do. Here's why we want to do it. Here's some of the context
for what we're doing." And I think that it's definitely a straw mat at this point but we
can add that link into one of the waves with the notes here and people are going to review
that over the next couple of days. We can also jump off from there and have some type
of road map discussion. I would encourage conciseness on a road map but, you know, that's
just me. James? >> JAMES: Can you type for anybody on Apache?
>> PETERSON: Yes. So, I know a few people who have been doing Apache things in the past
and I was involved with the Apache shindig project. And I've already lined up a champion
for us which is one of the key things we would need, via champion net would be the--our primary
mentor or our primary advocate inside Apache. And then I think one open issue--well, that
we make sure that we can find a few mentors who are very familiar who can help us build
the community in "the Apache way," as they call it. I don't think that will be--I don't
think that will be the major obstacle. And I think that--I think--I suspect Apache will
be interested in having this project as the--in the Incubator.
>> WANG: And by the way, just out of curiosity, how many people here in the crowd has actually
worked on Apache project before? >> PETERSON: Okay. Hey, Andy, you should raise
your hand. >> WANG: Two people.
>> PETERSON: What--what? Okay. >> WANG: Yes. That's good, that's good. We
have two experienced... >> PETERSON: Well, but--but, how about this?
Who's worked on an open source project before? >> PETERSON: All right. All right. See that?
That's actually, I would say, probably even more important.
>> Okay. Can it be if we a--the Apache clearance is basically just a [INDISTINCT] and it might
be some [INDISTINCT] I'm assuming a hard task. I--and Apache owning over the hard task, this
could prove to yourself that the [INDISTINCT] committer, you're a long term committer and
that you [INDISTINCT] in the organization [INDISTINCT] and I think you definitely have
to [INDISTINCT]. >> WANG: Okay. If we took a poll of people
who are playing muse tell him that this thing is set in stone so it seems like any proposal.
>> PETERSON: Well, I mean--I'm not hearing any objections to the idea of going down the
Apache Incubator project. >> WANG: Yeah.
>> I believe it's the best option available at the moment.
>> PETERSON: Right. >> It's the easy--not easiest but it's the
best option that as a supporting note to get us in a frame way of putting it and go to
other people and say, "Look, we're still around, we're not dead." And Apache has a name that
is probably the best...