Re: [mmox] Real Names

[Ann Otoole <[e-mail]>]

I see it more for what it is:
1. A veiled attempt to deny access to "Prokofy Neva".
2. An attempt to gender bias the activities.
3, A blatant attempt to deny access and participation to educational institutions and to private interests that may or may not have a future stake in this sector.

Basically this is about a grab for power that appears to be led by a beneficiary of the former Bush administration who may now see their contracts dry up as the focus is changed.
This effort should not be about corporations trying to "drive a stake in the ground from the outset" for the purpose of "preventing future expenses in technology development while securing future revenue streams".

If an interest wishes to remain anonymous while observing or participating then they will and there is nothing you can do about it. So you should immediately cease and desist from paranoid activities that will ultimately taint your organization's participation with the preamble inserted of "The following text serves the financial goals of (insert corporation here) and may or may not actually have any relevance other than a profit motivation via forcing an industry onto their platform while securing future revenue streams for said corporation".

Good way to kill a standards effort out of the gate. 

Now can we get back to the discussion? I posed a question/suggestion that spurred an excellent debate. Is it that you do not wish to have debates outside of how the Forterra OLIVE platform works?

Linden Lab has promoted the open source community and a lot of excellent work was accomplished in that manner without any government funded corporations grabbing control.


Perhaps we need to migrate this effort to the academic sector where it can be conducted in an unbiased manner.


________________________________
From: Charles Krinke <[e-mail]>
To: Robert Gehorsam <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:26:38 PM
Subject: Re: [mmox] Real Names


My motivation in bringing this up in the first place was to at least have a clue to whom I am speaking.

In saying "business-like", I mean a "polite, fruitful interchange of useful information", which has nothing to do with whether companyX has more (or less) customers, plans, aspirations, bathrooms or virtual regions then another.

Charles




________________________________
From: Robert Gehorsam <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 12:15:33 PM
Subject: Re: [mmox] Real Names

Re: [mmox] Real Names 
Ann -

I think the point is that having real names and associations with those names at the right point in time in a standards-forming process enables trust and an understanding of each party's interests.  From that perspective, each party can make a judgement about the statements of others, "good" "bad" "useful" "useless" -whatever.. This not about "greed" or getting rid of SL in any way.  Au contraire, the discussion is about greater inclusion in interoperability definitions.

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Fri Feb 20 12:09:18 2009
Subject: Re: [mmox] Real Names

This is not about your meeting rooms Jon. You are clearly trying to shove Second Life out of the way and thus Forterra needs to be excluded from the outset.

I move we remove corporations from the process that have blatantly declared a pure greed motivation as Jon/Forterra has already done.


________________________________

From: Jon Watte <[e-mail]>
To: Charles Krinke <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:48:42 PM
Subject: Re: [mmox] Real Names


Charles,

I would support a "real names only" policy.

I think the businesslike stage will happen if a determination of who actually has a business interest in interoperability is made. I don't know what the IETF rule on "observers" are -- parties who have an interest, but don't actually have a business directly involved in implementing the technology under consideration.

Sincerely,

jw


Charles Krinke wrote:
> Dear David and Meadhbh:
>
> I'm confused about some of the posts from email addresses that are either unsigned or from pseudonyms.
>
> It seems entirely reasonable to me that real names be used in this mailing list to avoid wasting all our time and so that we know who whe are speaking with.
>
> Is there some way in an IETF mailing list or by peer pressure to get this to a more businesslike stage?
>
> Charles Krinke

_______________________________________________
mmox mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox