Re: [mmox] MMOX Progress tracking (Jon Watte)

[Jon Watte <[e-mail]>]

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> What you envision is surely a beautiful thing.  However, calling that
> "true interop" is very loaded.  An advance in interoperability at any
> level, in any way, could be done, as long as it's interesting to
> enough people to work on to make an IETF WG.
>   

Yes, but I believe that the charter and goals of that WG should 
adequately reflect what the WG is doing (and the people doing it). If 
the outcome of the WG work is a protocol that only Second Life and Open 
Sim with their circuit of clients is interested in, then people not 
interested in that technology sphere probably needn't be here. There's 
nothing wrong with that, if that's what you want to do -- but then that 
should be the charter. Given that that's the only thing that the Linden 
Lab people have claimed to want to work on, and actually what they have 
claimed on the list to be the reason to have started the WG in the first 
place, perhaps the easiest way to make the WG sucessful is to change the 
charter to suit the goals, with an appropriately narrow scope.

While the goals are "vendor neutral virtual world interop," however, I 
will be happy to participate, because I believe I have a lot of 
experience in the area to bring to the table, and I can also represent 
one of the many virtual world efforts that would be applicable to 
consider for such a goal. In that case, it's really a shame that we 
don't have Multiverse, Kaneva, Areae or ActiveWorlds, or any one of a 
number of other virtual world technologies represented in these 
discussions, if that is actually the goal. Perhaps you will have luck if 
you try some outreach to people like that?

Sincerely,

jw