Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics

[Dan Olivares <[e-mail]>]

Hey there

I'm interested in working on a solid virtual world interoperability
standard.   I admit, that if this splits up into 'awg' and a more
broad standard, I'll probably attempt to participate in both (though
my time is limited). And, in tern, end up implementing both.   In
truth, I don't think this is the best use of resources, however, it
may get over the 'stigma' of 'LL'.    However..  on the other side of
that token, I've never heard a company back down from building a
standard because other people think that they're 'big'.

I think that the comments by Lisa Dussealt apply here;
"A quick note on participation: individuals participate in the IETF,
not companies.  We have no official differentiation between somebody
who works for a company that may or may not benefit from
standardization or interoperability, somebody who is representing
another organization, and somebody who is acting as a private
individual entirely."

Lets not kill future development because of company affiliations.  I'm
sure if Google was the market leader and they had representatives
here, they wouldn't step out because other people in the proposed
working group were concerned about their influence.

My 2c

Daniel Olivares


On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Morgaine
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Jon Watte <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Morgaine wrote:
>>>
>>> I wonder if perhaps we could do both, and thus avoid the conflict:
>>>  separate OGP and MMOX workgroups.  An OGP workgroup would be an excellent
>>> thing to work on, and as an AWG member I would certainly like to help fill
>>> in the parts that OGP has not yet defined.  But a MMOX group that targets
>>> the broader reaches of VW interop is also highly worthwhile, and much more
>>> visionary, and valuable to many more people.
>>
>> Why couldn't OGP stay in the AWG?
>
> It's not your place to deny Linden Lab the IETF standardization of their
> protocols, assuming that two independent reference implementations can be
> found.   The only problem is when it's done under false pretenses.
>>
>>
>> And assuming that's the split, then would the Second Life people still be
>> interested in the broader interoperability?
>
> My belief is that yes, they would, because in addition to having people
> focussed on improving their current technology, Linden Lab also has many
> very forward-looking visionaries that can see beyond the current SL.  In any
> case, MMOX was not formed by LL alone:  IBM has extremely broad VW
> interests.
>
> If you wish to suggest that those two goals can sometimes be in conflict
> within LL, then you would be right.  But if you were to suggest that it's
> either/or, then you would be wrong.
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Jon Watte <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Morgaine wrote:
>>>
>>> I wonder if perhaps we could do both, and thus avoid the conflict:
>>>  separate OGP and MMOX workgroups.  An OGP workgroup would be an excellent
>>> thing to work on, and as an AWG member I would certainly like to help fill
>>> in the parts that OGP has not yet defined.  But a MMOX group that targets
>>> the broader reaches of VW interop is also highly worthwhile, and much more
>>> visionary, and valuable to many more people.
>>
>> Why couldn't OGP stay in the AWG?
>>
>> And assuming that's the split, then would the Second Life people still be
>> interested in the broader interoperability?
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> jw
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>
>