Of those interested in participating in the 1.0 specification development,
does anyone not yet have a Google Wave account? I've started assembling the
first draft of the 1.0 specification there, and I'd like to see how it works
out for a non-formal initial phase of shaping up the specification. I have a
few invites left that I could provide to anyone wanting to participate but
currently unable to access it.
If there are major objections to attempting to do this this way, please let
me know.
Otherwise, for anyone else that would like to participate, please provide me
with your wave username in either public or private reply, and I'll add you
to the wave.
As an initial set of development guidelines:
- Only add comments to the document, don't edit the actual content - to
prevent things getting into too much of a sprawling mess, I'd like to
maintain actual editorial control of the base document. If we try to thread
discussions inline, then they can be rolled in systematically to the
document;
- Comments will be deleted once they reach a natural conclusion and that
conclusion has been rolled into the document;
- We'll keep the wave private, simply so as to moderate the entry of
participants, and hopefully avoid spam;
> Of those interested in participating in the 1.0 specification development,
> does anyone not yet have a Google Wave account? I've started assembling the
> first draft of the 1.0 specification there, and I'd like to see how it works
> out for a non-formal initial phase of shaping up the specification. I have a
> few invites left that I could provide to anyone wanting to participate but
> currently unable to access it.
> If there are major objections to attempting to do this this way, please let
> me know.
> Otherwise, for anyone else that would like to participate, please provide
> me with your wave username in either public or private reply, and I'll add
> you to the wave.
> As an initial set of development guidelines:
> - Only add comments to the document, don't edit the actual content - to
> prevent things getting into too much of a sprawling mess, I'd like to
> maintain actual editorial control of the base document. If we try to thread
> discussions inline, then they can be rolled in systematically to the
> document;
> - Comments will be deleted once they reach a natural conclusion and
> that conclusion has been rolled into the document;
> - We'll keep the wave private, simply so as to moderate the entry of
> participants, and hopefully avoid spam;
> Thanks,
> Paul.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "APML.Public.General" group.
> To post to this group, send email to apml-public@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> apml-public+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<apml-public%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr oups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/apml-public?hl=en.
> Of those interested in participating in the 1.0 specification development,
> does anyone not yet have a Google Wave account? I've started assembling the
> first draft of the 1.0 specification there, and I'd like to see how it works
> out for a non-formal initial phase of shaping up the specification. I have a
> few invites left that I could provide to anyone wanting to participate but
> currently unable to access it.
> If there are major objections to attempting to do this this way, please let
> me know.
> Otherwise, for anyone else that would like to participate, please provide me
> with your wave username in either public or private reply, and I'll add you
> to the wave.
> As an initial set of development guidelines:
> - Only add comments to the document, don't edit the actual content - to
> prevent things getting into too much of a sprawling mess, I'd like to
> maintain actual editorial control of the base document. If we try to thread
> discussions inline, then they can be rolled in systematically to the
> document;
> - Comments will be deleted once they reach a natural conclusion and that
> conclusion has been rolled into the document;
> - We'll keep the wave private, simply so as to moderate the entry of
> participants, and hopefully avoid spam;
> I would love to participate the 1.0 specification development. My
> Google-Wave account is pfeffe...@googlewave.com
> Thanks,
> Matthias
> On 29 Nov., 13:05, Paul Jones <pauljone...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Of those interested in participating in the 1.0 specification
>> development,
>> does anyone not yet have a Google Wave account? I've started
>> assembling the
>> first draft of the 1.0 specification there, and I'd like to see how
>> it works
>> out for a non-formal initial phase of shaping up the specification.
>> I have a
>> few invites left that I could provide to anyone wanting to
>> participate but
>> currently unable to access it.
>> If there are major objections to attempting to do this this way,
>> please let
>> me know.
>> Otherwise, for anyone else that would like to participate, please
>> provide me
>> with your wave username in either public or private reply, and I'll
>> add you
>> to the wave.
>> As an initial set of development guidelines:
>> - Only add comments to the document, don't edit the actual
>> content - to
>> prevent things getting into too much of a sprawling mess, I'd
>> like to
>> maintain actual editorial control of the base document. If we
>> try to thread
>> discussions inline, then they can be rolled in systematically to
>> the
>> document;
>> - Comments will be deleted once they reach a natural conclusion
>> and that
>> conclusion has been rolled into the document;
>> - We'll keep the wave private, simply so as to moderate the
>> entry of
>> participants, and hopefully avoid spam;
>> Thanks,
>> Paul.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "APML.Public.General" group.
> To post to this group, send email to apml-public@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to apml-public+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/apml-public?hl=en > .
In my experience, Wave is maintaining more document history than is useful and does not have a refined user experience. I'd prefer using Google Groups. If all we need is threaded comments and are not supposed to simultaneously edit the main doc, don't we already have what we need in Google Groups and the APML wiki?
> Of those interested in participating in the 1.0 specification development, does anyone not yet have a Google Wave account? I've started assembling the first draft of the 1.0 specification there, and I'd like to see how it works out for a non-formal initial phase of shaping up the specification. I have a few invites left that I could provide to anyone wanting to participate but currently unable to access it.
> If there are major objections to attempting to do this this way, please let me know.
> Otherwise, for anyone else that would like to participate, please provide me with your wave username in either public or private reply, and I'll add you to the wave.
> As an initial set of development guidelines:
> Only add comments to the document, don't edit the actual content - to prevent things getting into too much of a sprawling mess, I'd like to maintain actual editorial control of the base document. If we try to thread discussions inline, then they can be rolled in systematically to the document;
> Comments will be deleted once they reach a natural conclusion and that conclusion has been rolled into the document;
> We'll keep the wave private, simply so as to moderate the entry of participants, and hopefully avoid spam;
> Thanks,
> Paul.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "APML.Public.General" group.
> To post to this group, send email to apml-public@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to apml-public+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/apml-public?hl=en.
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Mason Lee <mason....@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my experience, Wave is maintaining more document history than is useful
> and does not have a refined user experience. I'd prefer using Google
> Groups. If all we need is threaded comments and are not supposed to
> simultaneously edit the main doc, don't we already have what we need in
> Google Groups and the APML wiki?
I actually quite like the amount of history that it keeps. I find the visual
diff playback quite useful - to be honest, it just never quite felt right on
the other wiki sites. However, the main key difference I've found is the
inline commenting. None of the other tools (that I know of) support this
kind of functionality. The ability to add the comments inline, thread them,
then delete them when its all done makes a huge difference to the kind of
workflow that can be constructed around it.
Personally, I just open my Wave client occasionally to see if anything has
changed. But I also have a few waves on the go, so it usually tends to be
worth the trouble. I've seen lots of notifiers though, so I have no doubt
one of them will be usable. What would probably be the most interesting
would be if somehow a bot could be put together that sent a changeset
summary to the group each day. Perhaps I'll look into that at some point.
Does this in some way answer your concerns about wave? As I said in my
original email, I'd just like to trial it as a way of collaborating on
getting the first solid draft of the spec together - after that is done, we
can re-assess and move it to a different process.
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Paul Jones <pauljone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mason,
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Mason Lee <mason....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In my experience, Wave is maintaining more document history than is useful
>> and does not have a refined user experience. I'd prefer using Google
>> Groups. If all we need is threaded comments and are not supposed to
>> simultaneously edit the main doc, don't we already have what we need in
>> Google Groups and the APML wiki?
> I actually quite like the amount of history that it keeps. I find the
> visual diff playback quite useful - to be honest, it just never quite felt
> right on the other wiki sites. However, the main key difference I've found
> is the inline commenting. None of the other tools (that I know of) support
> this kind of functionality. The ability to add the comments inline, thread
> them, then delete them when its all done makes a huge difference to the kind
> of workflow that can be constructed around it.
> Personally, I just open my Wave client occasionally to see if anything has
> changed. But I also have a few waves on the go, so it usually tends to be
> worth the trouble. I've seen lots of notifiers though, so I have no doubt
> one of them will be usable. What would probably be the most interesting
> would be if somehow a bot could be put together that sent a changeset
> summary to the group each day. Perhaps I'll look into that at some point.
> Does this in some way answer your concerns about wave? As I said in my
> original email, I'd just like to trial it as a way of collaborating on
> getting the first solid draft of the spec together - after that is done, we
> can re-assess and move it to a different process.
> Thanks,
> Paul.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "APML.Public.General" group.
> To post to this group, send email to apml-public@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> apml-public+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<apml-public%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr oups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/apml-public?hl=en.
On Monday, November 30, 2009, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It certainly will be the first time a widely-deployed spec has been developed in this way, will be interesting to see.
> Elias Bizannes
> http://eliasbizannes.com
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Paul Jones <pauljone...@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'pauljone...@gmail.com');>> wrote:
> Hi Mason,
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Mason Lee <mason....@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'mason....@gmail.com');>> wrote:
> In my experience, Wave is maintaining more document history than is useful and does not have a refined user experience. I'd prefer using Google Groups. If all we need is threaded comments and are not supposed to simultaneously edit the main doc, don't we already have what we need in Google Groups and the APML wiki?
> I actually quite like the amount of history that it keeps. I find the visual diff playback quite useful - to be honest, it just never quite felt right on the other wiki sites. However, the main key difference I've found is the inline commenting. None of the other tools (that I know of) support this kind of functionality. The ability to add the comments inline, thread them, then delete them when its all done makes a huge difference to the kind of workflow that can be constructed around it.
> Personally, I just open my Wave client occasionally to see if anything has changed. But I also have a few waves on the go, so it usually tends to be worth the trouble. I've seen lots of notifiers though, so I have no doubt one of them will be usable. What would probably be the most interesting would be if somehow a bot could be put together that sent a changeset summary to the group each day. Perhaps I'll look into that at some point.
> Does this in some way answer your concerns about wave? As I said in my original email, I'd just like to trial it as a way of collaborating on getting the first solid draft of the spec together - after that is done, we can re-assess and move it to a different process.
> Thanks,
> Paul.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "APML.Public.General" group.
> To post to this group, send email to apml-public@googlegroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'apml-public@googlegroups.com');>.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to apml-public+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/apml-public?hl=en.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "APML.Public.General" group.
> To post to this group, send email to apml-public@googlegroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'apml-public@googlegroups.com');>.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to apml-public+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/apml-public?hl=en.
> I'm certainly not saying it will definitely work either - I'd just
> like to give it a shot.
> On Monday, November 30, 2009, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It certainly will be the first time a widely-deployed spec has been developed in this way, will be interesting to see.
>> Elias Bizannes
>> http://eliasbizannes.com
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Paul Jones <pauljone...@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'pauljone...@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>> Hi Mason,
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Mason Lee <mason....@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'mason....@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>> In my experience, Wave is maintaining more document history than is useful and does not have a refined user experience. I'd prefer using Google Groups. If all we need is threaded comments and are not supposed to simultaneously edit the main doc, don't we already have what we need in Google Groups and the APML wiki?
>> I actually quite like the amount of history that it keeps. I find the visual diff playback quite useful - to be honest, it just never quite felt right on the other wiki sites. However, the main key difference I've found is the inline commenting. None of the other tools (that I know of) support this kind of functionality. The ability to add the comments inline, thread them, then delete them when its all done makes a huge difference to the kind of workflow that can be constructed around it.
>> Personally, I just open my Wave client occasionally to see if anything has changed. But I also have a few waves on the go, so it usually tends to be worth the trouble. I've seen lots of notifiers though, so I have no doubt one of them will be usable. What would probably be the most interesting would be if somehow a bot could be put together that sent a changeset summary to the group each day. Perhaps I'll look into that at some point.
>> Does this in some way answer your concerns about wave? As I said in my original email, I'd just like to trial it as a way of collaborating on getting the first solid draft of the spec together - after that is done, we can re-assess and move it to a different process.
>> Thanks,
>> Paul.
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "APML.Public.General" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to apml-public@googlegroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'apml-public@googlegroups.com');>.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to apml-public+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/apml-public?hl=en.
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "APML.Public.General" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to apml-public@googlegroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'apml-public@googlegroups.com');>.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to apml-public+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/apml-public?hl=en.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "APML.Public.General" group.
> To post to this group, send email to apml-public@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to apml-public+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/apml-public?hl=en.
