The problem with the mission statement mentioning Notion is that notion is too big of a product and you are probably only aiming to displace a small part of it.
Secondly, if a server cant be spun up alongside this that serves markdown editing, that others can access immediately without going through a setup process, for guerilla collaboration, then it is not replacing notion. It is simply a different medium.
Notion is a lot of things; pages, triggers, actions, databases, and agents. You are focusing only on pages.
Not 100% sure I understand, but, if you opt into sharing a doc, we do spin up a collaboration server on your behalf, and editors do not have to set anything up to use it. The bulk of the work we've had to do is to make this seamless and good.
For the other points: yes, we aspire to do all of those things. :)
Our approach, which is behind a feature flag right now, is to allow users to attach "assets" to jj change IDs (these are sort of like stable git commit SHAs). This is how we will power inline comments, and it's how we'll power Notion-style SQLite-based databases. We already have, checked in, an implementation of IVM built on top of SQLite, specifically for this purpose. I don't see how we could be a Notion competitor without them.
Secondly, if a server cant be spun up alongside this that serves markdown editing, that others can access immediately without going through a setup process, for guerilla collaboration, then it is not replacing notion. It is simply a different medium.
Notion is a lot of things; pages, triggers, actions, databases, and agents. You are focusing only on pages.