I think blueprint is more accessible and more immediately descriptive.
If no one has any real objections I will start making the change asap
- preferably before the first draft of the WRFS Spec is released for
discussion by Josh, Paul, Zef and myself.
Chris and group,
Per our discussion, and from some of my discussions with various
people, we want to make a few distinctions about group focus and
technology focus. dp.org is about evangelizing multiple technologies
(OAuth, openID, APML, microformats, etc), and WRFS is simply a new
developmental protocol. dp.org's mission has been stated to not
"reinvent" thing, but in some aspects, WRFS is a new technology
(considering how it has an index "wNode", and the mechanics between
that and the endpoints). From that regard, we decided to announce
draft 1 of the spec here, and then spin WRFS off into its own
development group, since engineering is not the core focus of this
group, and that will help provide a clear distinction between the two
(Which is a complaint ive heard more than once from people). dp.org
and WRFS will continue to be "best buds", but WRFS has to take its
place in the "stack" and be a solid engineering effort and stand on
its own two feet. This is in no way a slight of any group, or a
"divorce" of anyone, just a clear distinction to make WRFS what it is
(nice, solid, engineering effort), and dp.org what it is (nice
organizational effort and evangelization).
This way people who want to work on, well, whatever they want, can
continue to do just that, and focus on that. WRFS will continue to
plug right into and be apart of the DP Blueprint, however, to give the
best quality project we felt like it needed to be branded as its own
logical unit.
Thanks for everyone's interest, and we look forward to working with
you all. I've created a google group for WRFS spec work at:
> I think blueprint is more accessible and more immediately descriptive.
> If no one has any real objections I will start making the change asap
> - preferably before the first draft of the WRFS Spec is released for
> discussion by Josh, Paul, Zef and myself.
I think this separation is crucial to getting DP on track and focused on some real-world objectives. It also frees up WRFS to be whatever it needs to be, and like most open source projects, to develop organically, with a community truly interested in the project.
As for Chris' question, I'm against the notion of a "blueprint" (at least for the foreseeable future) and prefer "guidelines" or "best practices". Especially since we're quite a ways off from any kind of consensus, it seems a stretch to think that we have anything close to a "blueprint" yet, or will, for that matter, for some time to come.
Chris
On Jan 10, 2008 9:54 AM, Josh Patterson <jpatter...@floe.tv> wrote:
> Chris and group, > Per our discussion, and from some of my discussions with various > people, we want to make a few distinctions about group focus and > technology focus. dp.org is about evangelizing multiple technologies > (OAuth, openID, APML, microformats, etc), and WRFS is simply a new > developmental protocol. dp.org's mission has been stated to not > "reinvent" thing, but in some aspects, WRFS is a new technology > (considering how it has an index "wNode", and the mechanics between > that and the endpoints). From that regard, we decided to announce > draft 1 of the spec here, and then spin WRFS off into its own > development group, since engineering is not the core focus of this > group, and that will help provide a clear distinction between the two > (Which is a complaint ive heard more than once from people). dp.org > and WRFS will continue to be "best buds", but WRFS has to take its > place in the "stack" and be a solid engineering effort and stand on > its own two feet. This is in no way a slight of any group, or a > "divorce" of anyone, just a clear distinction to make WRFS what it is > (nice, solid, engineering effort), and dp.org what it is (nice > organizational effort and evangelization).
> This way people who want to work on, well, whatever they want, can > continue to do just that, and focus on that. WRFS will continue to > plug right into and be apart of the DP Blueprint, however, to give the > best quality project we felt like it needed to be branded as its own > logical unit.
> Thanks for everyone's interest, and we look forward to working with > you all. I've created a google group for WRFS spec work at:
> > I think blueprint is more accessible and more immediately descriptive.
> > If no one has any real objections I will start making the change asap > > - preferably before the first draft of the WRFS Spec is released for > > discussion by Josh, Paul, Zef and myself.
-- Chris Messina Citizen-Participant & Open Source Advocate-at-Large Work: http://citizenagency.com Blog: http://factoryjoe.com/blog Cell: 412.225.1051 IM: factoryjoe This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
> I think this separation is crucial to getting DP on track and focused
> on some real-world objectives. It also frees up WRFS to be whatever it
> needs to be, and like most open source projects, to develop
> organically, with a community truly interested in the project.
> As for Chris' question, I'm against the notion of a "blueprint" (at
> least for the foreseeable future) and prefer "guidelines" or "best
> practices". Especially since we're quite a ways off from any kind of
> consensus, it seems a stretch to think that we have anything close to
> a "blueprint" yet, or will, for that matter, for some time to come.
> Chris
> On Jan 10, 2008 9:54 AM, Josh Patterson <jpatter...@floe.tv> wrote:
> > Chris and group,
> > Per our discussion, and from some of my discussions with various
> > people, we want to make a few distinctions about group focus and
> > technology focus. dp.org is about evangelizing multiple technologies
> > (OAuth, openID, APML, microformats, etc), and WRFS is simply a new
> > developmental protocol. dp.org's mission has been stated to not
> > "reinvent" thing, but in some aspects, WRFS is a new technology
> > (considering how it has an index "wNode", and the mechanics between
> > that and the endpoints). From that regard, we decided to announce
> > draft 1 of the spec here, and then spin WRFS off into its own
> > development group, since engineering is not the core focus of this
> > group, and that will help provide a clear distinction between the two
> > (Which is a complaint ive heard more than once from people). dp.org
> > and WRFS will continue to be "best buds", but WRFS has to take its
> > place in the "stack" and be a solid engineering effort and stand on
> > its own two feet. This is in no way a slight of any group, or a
> > "divorce" of anyone, just a clear distinction to make WRFS what it is
> > (nice, solid, engineering effort), and dp.org what it is (nice
> > organizational effort and evangelization).
> > This way people who want to work on, well, whatever they want, can
> > continue to do just that, and focus on that. WRFS will continue to
> > plug right into and be apart of the DP Blueprint, however, to give the
> > best quality project we felt like it needed to be branded as its own
> > logical unit.
> > Thanks for everyone's interest, and we look forward to working with
> > you all. I've created a google group for WRFS spec work at:
> > > I think blueprint is more accessible and more immediately descriptive.
> > > If no one has any real objections I will start making the change asap
> > > - preferably before the first draft of the WRFS Spec is released for
> > > discussion by Josh, Paul, Zef and myself.
> --
> Chris Messina
> Citizen-Participant &
> Open Source Advocate-at-Large
> Work:http://citizenagency.com > Blog:http://factoryjoe.com/blog > Cell: 412.225.1051
> IM: factoryjoe
> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private- Hide quoted text -
|
