Re: New maintainer needed!

I did not get the same feeling.

Although a spec might not fit by itself, a sample code implementation that sticks to the specs would be a worthwhile addition. I attempted to register the project google, but it complained about sf having a project by that name (it doesn't as far as I can see), so I am waiting word from google staff.

If others decide to do another path is better for the group/spec, I will use this as a place for the 1.0 spec.

--
Matthew P. C. Morley
MPCM Technologies Inc.

Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

Hello all,

As many have seen over the past two years my involvement with
JSON-RPC have almost come to a stop.
I am sorry to let everyone down. With a fulltime job and other
hobbies I just don't have time.

So, I am looking for anyone who would like to be the discussion
group's maintainer(group owner).

If anyone likes to take over the subversion repository, source code,
ticket and wiki on http://json-rpc.org, please let me know, too.
I am happy to keep this up and running until someone volunteers to
take it over.

Jan-Klaas Kollhof

Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

Jan-Klass:
I would very much like to help take over maintaining the discussion and development of JSON-RPC. I have just released new JSON-RPC client and server implementations , so I have become intimately familiar with the current draft of the specification; furthermore, I "believe" in JSON-RPC and I use it in my own projects, so want to see it mature. Thus I would like facilitate the completion of the new specification and its maintenance. I volunteer to help with taking over the subversion repository, source code, ticket and wiki. For the discussion, the first thing I would propose is to move over to Google Groups.

Regards,
Weston Ruter

Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

•  3
  New Members

Visit Your Group

SPONSORED LINKS

• Sip protocol
• Protocol analyzer
• Protocol analysis
• Protocol converter
• Protocol

Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

I agree, Jeffery. No single individual should have complete control of maintaining the specification or moderating the discussion. A committee should be formed so that JSON-RPC doesn't become one single person';s thing, and so that there can be accountability and collaboration.

Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

Agreed.

In particular I would like to see that the 1.0 spec is archived and kept available, for those of us who have issues with the 1.1WD in it's current spec.

I am willing to provide funds toward hosting if need be or if others are unable to step up, I can sort out the hosting. I used the 1.0 spec heavily in several large production projects, and thus have a company and personal interest in it staying available.

Perhaps once we have shared our interests, we can as a group discuss how to handle a meeting? Somewhat like the last phone meeting we held over json-rpc.

--
Matthew P. C. Morley
MPCM Technologies Inc.

Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

Hi,

Agreed!

My company is developing solutions for tourism using JSON-RPC too, and
would be interested in participating to the committee.

Before the committee takes a more "formal" form, I would second the
suggestion to migrate to google groups.

Lorenzo Pastrana

Weston Ruter wrote:
> I agree, Jeffery. No single individual should have complete control of
> maintaining the specification or moderating the discussion. A
> committee should be formed so that JSON-RPC doesn't become one single
> person's thing, and so that there can be accountability and
> collaboration.
>
> On 8/19/07, *Jeffrey Damick* < jeffreydamick%40gmail.com">jeffreydamickgmail.com
> <mailto: jeffreydamick%40gmail.com">jeffreydamickgmail.com>> wrote:
&gt;
>
> Mycompany also has several implementations of the json-rpc
> 1.1WD in java and ruby which have been in a production environment
> for about 10 months..So I would rather not see the spec just left
>; up for grabs to the first person that responds.. Maybe a commitee
> would be better than a single individual?
>
>
>
>
> On 8/19/07, *Jan-Klaas Kollhof* < keyjaque%40yahoo.com">keyjaqueyahoo.com
> <mailto: keyjaque%40yahoo.com">keyjaqueyahoo.com>> wrote:
&gt;
> Hello all,
>;
> As many have seen over the past two years my involvement with
>; JSON-RPC have almost come to a stop.
&gt; I am sorry to let everyone down. With a fulltime job and other
&gt; hobbies I just don't have time.
&gt;
> So, I am looking for anyone who would like to be the discussion
> group's maintainer(group owner).
>
> If anyone likes to take over the subversion repository, source
&gt; code,
&gt; ticket and wiki on http://json-rpc.org,
> <http://json-rpc.org,/> please let me know, too.
>; I am happy to keep this up and running until someone
> volunteers to
> take it over.
&gt;
> Jan-Klaas Kollhof
>
>
>
&gt;

Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

Here's a list of action items that I see as being pending:

1. Determine who will be the discussion group's maintainer (group owner); Jan-Klass was referring to this current Yahoo Group, but the consensus seems to be that we should move to Google Groups.
2. Determine how we shall handle the hosting of json-rpc.org. I assume that Jan-Klass won't indefinitely continue hosting json-rpc.org, so we'll need to decide on where to host. Matthew has expressed willingness to provide funds.
3. Discuss how to delegate SVN privileges and hosting access, and who administers the issue tracker and the wiki.
   
4. Discuss the current website. Do we want to continue using Trac? Does the website need to be restructured or redesigned? Ensure that the 1.0 spec is archived and kept available (Matthew).
5. Begin to discuss where we are with JSON-RPC 1.1, and what improvements need to be made for it to move to the next draft stage.
   

Thus far, the following people have expressed interest in being part of the JSON-RPC committee:

1. Weston Ruter < westonrutergmail.com" target="_blank">westonrutergmail.com>
2. Matthew Morley < mmorleympcm.com" target="_blank"> mmorleympcm.com>
   
3. Lorenzo Pastrana < pastranaultraflat.net" target="_blank"> pastranaultraflat.net>
4. (?) Jeffrey Damick < jeffreydamickgmail.com" target="_blank">jeffreydamickgmail.com>

I propose that in a week or two, after everyone has been given a chance to express their commitment to JSON-RPC, that we form a committee consisting of the committed persons. Then we can discuss together the action items above and any others which are raised over the next weeks.

Weston

Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

Yes, count me in as well.

For 2,3,4 - If you want to move to google groups (fine with me), you know code.google.com also has wiki, issue tracking, svn, etc. Might as well make it 1 stop..

Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

•  5
  New Members

Visit Your Group

SPONSORED LINKS

• Sip protocol
• Protocol analyzer
• Protocol analysis
• Protocol converter
• Protocol