Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the Generic Client model

[Jon Watte <[e-mail]>]

Charles Krinke wrote:
> This MMOX group is here to currently work out a charter and state the 
> problem. Until the problem can be stated in a reasonable manner that 
> all can agree with, jumping ahead to saying that solutionX, Y or Z is 
> the only *true* solution is premature.
>

I'm not saying there's a *true* solution. I'm saying that there are 
reasons why I don't think certain solutions are cost effective in 
bringing the world towards a true, merged, interoperable metaverse, and 
why other solutions probably are cost effective, based on experience.

> I rather suspect that this group needs to come to grips with a 
> reasonable charter and move forward in the framework of the IETF to 
> make recommendations on ports, data formats and the like.
>

The problem is that we seem to be pretty far apart when it comes to 
defining "reasonable charter." For example, if the charter is such that 
too broad a scope is selected ("include everything"), then a lot of 
people will be put off because each member is supposed to contribute to 
each of the accepted proposals through the group. Meanwhile, if the 
charter is narrowed down to any particular proposal, and that proposal 
in reality only helps out a few of the participants, then the other 
participants probably will have to go elsewhere.

Do you believe the group could be successful, and attract members from 
the wider virtual world community (not just the people currently in the 
group), if the charter was "include everything"?
Similarly, do you think that those who are outside the Second Life / 
OpenSim sphere would be interested in participating in defining a 
standard that, realistically, only applies to systems designed based on 
that DNA?

> Personally, I tend to give more credence to logical ideas that are 
> implemented and testable. And, currently, these are OGP, MXP and 
> HyperGrid, but not LESS.

LESS is designed to take advantage of learning we have gathered over the 
years, as well as being formulated to be easily accepted by a wide 
variety of virtual world architectures.

It sounds on you as if you would actually have been happier if I had 
submitted the OLIVE-specific, proprietary, 
not-designed-as-a-middle-ground protocol we use for interop in our 
current interop gateway, just because it's already implemented. Is this 
what you are advocating?

Sincerely,

jw