5 ms·

The project is open source and open to contributions from anyone. Every single time this comes up the project contributors have said that they will gladly modif

by Zikes 11y ago

The project is open source and open to contributions from anyone. Every single time this comes up the project contributors have said that they will gladly modify <amp-ad> to support any network they can. They're also constantly developing new <amp-X> components to fill in the gaps for other embeddable services. You want <amp-vk>? Submit a PR! Open an issue! It's open source! And please, please tell me what's wrong with using e.g. <amp-youtube>? It's just a web component! All it does is what you want it to do, and if it doesn't do what you want then either you shouldn't do that, or you can just submit a PR. The whole point of AMP is 1) make sure the developer doesn't do anything that'll make the page load unnecessarily slowly or repaint/relayout unnecessarily and 2) make it way easier for the developer to accomplish #1 because all you have to do is type <amp-youtube>. AMP is no different from, say, jQuery, or React, or Angular. It's a different way of doing things, but it's not a "gatekeeper" on the web. It's just another option, one more tool in your belt, if you so choose.

ValentineC 11y ago
> The project is open source and open to contributions from anyone. Every single time this comes up the project contributors have said that they will gladly modify <amp-ad> to support any network they can. They're also constantly developing new <amp-X> components to fill in the gaps for other embeddable services. You want <amp-vk>? Submit a PR! Open an issue! It's open source! Who gets to decide which pull requests get accepted? What if I wanted to create an amp component for my network with a userbase of two people?
- cramforce 11y ago
  amp-iframe is what you want is this case. See https://medium.com/@cramforce/2016-will-be-the-year-of-concurrency-on-the-web-c39b1e99b30f https://medium.com/@cramforce/2016-will-be-the-year-of-concu... for the long game as to how to build such things in AMP without iframes.
callahad 11y ago
> The project is open source and open to contributions from anyone. The project is exclusively governed by three Google employees, listed at https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/GOVERNANCE..., all contributions are at their discretion. All contributors must sign a legally binding licensing agreement with Google which includes a patent grant, per https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/CONTRIBUTI.... The Web is powerful because you don't have to ask permission. AMP is not cut from that cloth.
- Zikes 11y ago
  I don't see what makes it different from any other open source project. Of course it's going to have technical leads and core committers, it's not like you can go force a PR merge on jQuery trunk any time you please. I'm aghast that you would even suggest such a thing. And CLA's aren't fun, but they're hardly new, either.[1] If you don't like that it's Google, that's fine, but at least be honest with yourself about it. But unless you've submitted a PR or can cite a PR (on any Google OSS repo at all) that they've rejected purely on the basis that Google is somehow doing wrong by the developers, then what are we even talking about? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement#Users https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement#...
  - ajsalminen 11y ago
    To me the problematic part that makes it different to at least some open source projects is that all those technical leads and core committers are apparently employed by Google (and working on company time, I assume). That could mean Google, and Google alone, gets to decide where it goes.
    - Zikes 11y ago
      Honestly, the only criticism I'm hearing over and over is "because Google", and considering their track record with Chrome, Android, Angular, Polymer, Go, and literally hundreds of other open-source projects, I'm perfectly okay with that.
sliverstorm 11y ago
The whole point of AMP is... Right. Looking at this whole thing humorously, it seems like the uproar is over AMP is developers getting angry at a tool designed to prevent them from shooting themselves in the foot, for removing their ability to shoot themselves in the foot :)
- Zikes 11y ago
  I look at it as HTML5 "strict" mode.
tn13 11y ago
Open Source does not really mean better and open. The role of Google as Gatekeeper remains. Android is Open source too but how many non-Google controlled Android phones do you see on market ?
- Zikes 11y ago
  A few. http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Devices http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Devices Open source means there's no such thing as a "Gatekeeper". As with every other open source project ever, you can just fork it. How many open source projects today are forked from their original repo because a large enough portion of the users and developers disagreed with the ones in control? Honestly, this argument is just silly. https://developers.google.com/open-source/projects https://developers.google.com/open-source/projects read that list and name one time where Google abused the control they had over the project they created. They already have a good track record for open source. This "gatekeeper" nonsense is just a bunch of unnecessary FUD.
hobarrera 11y ago
> you can just submit a PR. And wait for google to accept it at their own discretion. That's exactly what a gatekeeper is.

by Zikes 11y ago

ValentineC 11y ago

> The project is open source and open to contributions from anyone. Every single time this comes up the project contributors have said that they will gladly modify <amp-ad> to support any network they can. They're also constantly developing new <amp-X> components to fill in the gaps for other embeddable services. You want <amp-vk>? Submit a PR! Open an issue! It's open source! Who gets to decide which pull requests get accepted? What if I wanted to create an amp component for my network with a userbase of two people?

cramforce 11y ago
amp-iframe is what you want is this case. See https://medium.com/@cramforce/2016-will-be-the-year-of-concurrency-on-the-web-c39b1e99b30f https://medium.com/@cramforce/2016-will-be-the-year-of-concu... for the long game as to how to build such things in AMP without iframes.

callahad 11y ago

> The project is open source and open to contributions from anyone. The project is exclusively governed by three Google employees, listed at https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/GOVERNANCE..., all contributions are at their discretion. All contributors must sign a legally binding licensing agreement with Google which includes a patent grant, per https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/CONTRIBUTI.... The Web is powerful because you don't have to ask permission. AMP is not cut from that cloth.

Zikes 11y ago
I don't see what makes it different from any other open source project. Of course it's going to have technical leads and core committers, it's not like you can go force a PR merge on jQuery trunk any time you please. I'm aghast that you would even suggest such a thing. And CLA's aren't fun, but they're hardly new, either.[1] If you don't like that it's Google, that's fine, but at least be honest with yourself about it. But unless you've submitted a PR or can cite a PR (on any Google OSS repo at all) that they've rejected purely on the basis that Google is somehow doing wrong by the developers, then what are we even talking about? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement#Users https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement#...
- ajsalminen 11y ago
  To me the problematic part that makes it different to at least some open source projects is that all those technical leads and core committers are apparently employed by Google (and working on company time, I assume). That could mean Google, and Google alone, gets to decide where it goes.
  - Zikes 11y ago
    Honestly, the only criticism I'm hearing over and over is "because Google", and considering their track record with Chrome, Android, Angular, Polymer, Go, and literally hundreds of other open-source projects, I'm perfectly okay with that.

sliverstorm 11y ago

The whole point of AMP is... Right. Looking at this whole thing humorously, it seems like the uproar is over AMP is developers getting angry at a tool designed to prevent them from shooting themselves in the foot, for removing their ability to shoot themselves in the foot :)

Zikes 11y ago
I look at it as HTML5 "strict" mode.

tn13 11y ago

Open Source does not really mean better and open. The role of Google as Gatekeeper remains. Android is Open source too but how many non-Google controlled Android phones do you see on market ?

Zikes 11y ago
A few. http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Devices http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Devices Open source means there's no such thing as a "Gatekeeper". As with every other open source project ever, you can just fork it. How many open source projects today are forked from their original repo because a large enough portion of the users and developers disagreed with the ones in control? Honestly, this argument is just silly. https://developers.google.com/open-source/projects https://developers.google.com/open-source/projects read that list and name one time where Google abused the control they had over the project they created. They already have a good track record for open source. This "gatekeeper" nonsense is just a bunch of unnecessary FUD.

hobarrera 11y ago

> you can just submit a PR. And wait for google to accept it at their own discretion. That's exactly what a gatekeeper is.