I believe Waves are private unless you make them public but anyone on  
your wave can add people. I don't know if there is a way to limit who  
can add. Of course that is similar to email as when you are emailing a  
group, anyone can add another participant. Or delete a participant.  
Several waves I've participated in have had someone accidently delete  
portions. I'm looking now and it doesn't look like there is a way to  
remove participants from a wave even if you started the wave.

You can search public waves with "with:public" in the inbox search  
area. You will find hundreds or thousands to join.

Does someone want to start a Google Wave listserv list? Some folks are  
dropping from this list and I think it's because of the heavy Wave  
discussion.

Peter



On Dec 3, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Karoline Dehnhard wrote:

> Here is an example of a very basic test of a wave embedded into a  
> web page with a join wave button at the bottom: http://startupgrinder.com/wave
>
> I may have found the answer to my question about privacy - unless  
> you add [log in to unmask] as a participant, your waves remain  
> private (within your group). I have not tried it though so I can't  
> verify this info.
>
> Karoline
>
> Kristofer Layon wrote:
>> I think you both have valid points.  It's a very interesting tool  
>> from an experimental point of view; practically, it is still  
>> relatively useless.  It may morph into something more compelling,  
>> though, over time.
>>
>> To me, it's kind of a large and unwieldy Swiss Army knife of a  
>> tool.  Other things are more simple and more reliable.  Combining  
>> too much in one package results not only in the general buggyness  
>> of it, but then it also just becomes overwhelming to implement in  
>> daily life.
>>
>> But the application aspect does have weight.  Twitter is another  
>> example more like email, that is more of a standard than just a  
>> proprietary channel (though it still is that, obviously).  But the  
>> range of desktop tools has liberated Twitter to reside on my  
>> desktop and phone, but in the background just like email.  I can  
>> choose to read often, or choose to read less often, yet keep them  
>> on all the time.  So they're omnipresent yet function well  
>> asynchronously.
>>
>> I haven't tried anything like this with Wave yet, but I can't  
>> imagine logging into Wave and just leaving it on all day in a  
>> browser window in case something interesting happens.  It seems  
>> like it requires immediate attention and very intentional  
>> engagement for it to do its intended purpose. Though I could be  
>> wrong and maybe if I didn't find so much practical utility in  
>> Twitter, Wave might seem more appealing.  But Wave seems more like  
>> an online presentation or meeting (or -- gasp -- a live webinar);  
>> Twitter is more just a casual watercooler conversation (though with  
>> more people).
>>
>> And maybe these tools appeal to various people differently,  
>> depending on their personality types?
>>
>> So anyway, see you on Twitter instead.  =)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Zachary Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> Huh, you sure are giving Google a lot of credit!  Nothing wrong  
>>> with that I suppose.
>>>
>>> Me... I'm skeptical.  Email revolutionized communication and  
>>> became a standard way for people to interact on the internet, but  
>>> there's a thousand different email applications, both desktop and  
>>> web based. There's even the divide between plain text and HTML  
>>> emails.
>>>
>>> The web browser may be a better example of a revolutionary  
>>> communications platform that (despite the variety of choices  
>>> available and the differences between them) comes close to  
>>> presenting a "standard interface through which the majority of  
>>> people interact" with the internet.
>>>
>>> Wave *may* just prove to be the standard protocol for a  
>>> revolutionized internet communication (still skeptical) but I just  
>>> don't see everybody interacting with the internet through some  
>>> sort of Google-made Wave Browser.  Google has at least been smart  
>>> enough to open up the protocol, which may make a future where  
>>> there are several competing Wave browsers on the market just like  
>>> web browsers now.  Perhaps you weren't suggesting anything more  
>>> than that, Patrick.
>>>
>>> If Wave proves to be nothing more than another web application  
>>> that you interact with in your web browser, then I don't really  
>>> see it being *the* ubiquitous feature of post-Web 2.0.  I think  
>>> it'll just be one of many things we use.  Well... if we use it at  
>>> all.  Not all of Google's inventions are successful.  And so far,  
>>> the few times where I thought to myself "Ooh! I could use a Wave  
>>> for this!" I've been really disappointed with the User Experience.
>>>
>>> Ok, I'll give Google some credit, too: They must be doing  
>>> something right if we're even having this conversation.
>>>
>>> Zach
>>>
>>>
>>> Patrick Haggerty wrote:
>>>> Right now, I think Wave is more a toy than a full tool.  Part of  
>>>> that is its feature set isn't complete and part is that we're all  
>>>> treating it like a toy.  What I think Wave is ultimately going to  
>>>> become is a unified interface for Web 2.0.  If they manage to  
>>>> integrate the service into social networks and blogs and forums  
>>>> and so on, we'll have one interface for the majority of online  
>>>> contribution and collaboration.  Sure it's advertised as the next  
>>>> iteration of email, but I think its greater contribution will be  
>>>> to standardize the interface through which the majority of people  
>>>> interact with the web.
>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Peter Fleck <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask] 
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>   Google Wave has been fairly successful in organizing the Other
>>>>   Future of News (OFON) conference. Julio Ojeda-Zapata provides  
>>>> some
>>>>   details at the Pi Press site.
>>>>   http://blogs.twincities.com/yourtechweblog/2009/12/local-media-writer-harnesses-google-wave-for-planning.html
>>>>   ======================
>>>>   Peter Fleck
>>>>   [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>   612-424-5107
>>>> -- 
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Patrick Haggerty
>>>> Office of Information Technology
>>>>    University of Minnesota    Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask] 
>>>> >
>>>> Phone: 612-626-5807
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> ______________________________
>>> Zachary Johnson * Web Manager
>>> Student Unions & Activities
>>> (612) 624 - 7270
>>> http://www.sua.umn.edu/
>
>
> -- 
> Karoline Dehnhard
> Web Designer
> 272 Appleby Hall
> University of Minnesota
> (612)625-2906

======================
Peter Fleck
[log in to unmask]
612-424-5107