Re: [mmox] Learning from the past; focusing on the future

["Robert Gehorsam" <[e-mail]>]

Anyone who wants to, I think.  There are places like Virtual World News weekly where something could be posted too. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gareth Nelson [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 2:22 AM
To: Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)
Cc: Robert Gehorsam; [e-mail]; Mystical Demina; Jon Watte
Subject: Re: [mmox] Learning from the past; focusing on the future

Not your place to commit them, but whose place is it to at least contact them?

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> yes. the purpose of the upcoming MMOX BoF session is to get people 
> from a diverse collection of virtual worlds / MMOs in the same room at 
> the same time to discuss:
>
> a. is a working group a good idea?
> b. if so, how should we constrain the problem domain?
> c. if we can't agree on the same problem domain, does it make sense to 
> have multiple working groups?
>
> it is telling that the 74th IETF meeting is held during the same week 
> and less than a mile away from this year's game developers conference, 
> but it is not my place to commit representatives from the companies 
> you mention to attend.
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
>
> On Feb 23, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Robert Gehorsam wrote:
>
>> I think part of the issue here with regard to the debate between 
>> broad and narrow interoperability is that, other than Jon 
>> representing Forterra's technical efforts, there are no other visibly 
>> participating technical representatives from any other virtual world 
>> technology providers or other relevant groups.  No one from Sun, 
>> Qwaq, Multiverse, HiPiHi, Activeworlds, any of the browser-based 
>> folks, Twinity, any of the game folks or kids worlds, Makena (the 
>> company that, contrary to some folks' assertions, is the company that 
>> makes and operates There.com), Proton Media, Icarus or its various 
>> partners, ECS, and so forth.   I've seen references to Qwaq but 
>> haven't seen Greg or anyone else from there participating here.   
>> There are probably two dozen companies that would be reasonable 
>> candidates for this discussion, not to mention companies like Adobe, 
>> Google, Intel, Samsung, Sony and, yes, even Microsoft, all of which 
>> might arguably have some interesting contributions to make.
>>
>> It may be that this lack of broad participation is creating -- fairly 
>> or unfairly -- the sense that the conversation will naturally drift 
>> towards an SL-OS orientation -- despite what I see as the best 
>> intentions of many people here -- simply because, other than 
>> Forterra, no one else is stepping up to the plate.   I can tell you 
>> that *that* is not something that Forterra wants to see, because it's 
>> inherent in our view of the evolution of the internet that 
>> interoperability between diverse virtual worlds is essential for all 
>> to succeed.  So the imbalance in this ongoing discussion creates a 
>> false dynamic of conflict when none is intended.  Without broad 
>> input, how can we achieve broad interoperability?
>>
>> Is there any outreach going on to these various organizations, or is 
>> that somehow not part of the policy?  Not being really familiar with 
>> the workings of these sorts of technical groups, I just don't know.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf 
>> Of Jon Watte
>> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 4:15 PM
>> To: Morgaine
>> Cc: Mystical Demina; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [mmox] Learning from the past; focusing on the future
>>
>> Morgaine wrote:
>>>
>>> I can't understand why you continue to raise the spectre that we're 
>>> here to rubberstamp SL standards.  We aren't.  I'm not aware of 
>>> anybody with that agenda.
>>>
>>
>> Because there are several people on this list who say "OpenSim and 
>> Second Life are already trying to do client interoperability; I think 
>> we should run with it and not worry about something bigger."
>> Similarly, I find that the current OGP proposal specifies some thing 
>> ("Rezzing" of avatars) that are Second Life centric, while not 
>> specifying other things that would be necessary for an actually 
>> useful interoperable virtual world (like entity telemetry).
>>
>> Similarly, if OGP is specified as a mostly empty vessel that can 
>> contain arbitrary negotiated data, what would probably happen would 
>> be that OpenSim puts OpenSim data in that vessel, and IMVU puts IMVU 
>> data in that vessel, and both claim to support "OGP interoperability" 
>> but you can't do anything useful through that claim. I want to avoid 
>> that outcome.
>>>
>>> We are working in good faith towards your item 2), while noting that 
>>> item 2) means interop with "all" reasonable worlds, and that 
>>> includes Linden worlds.  It's not either/or, it's both.  Please 
>>> grant us that, so that we can actually make headway.
>>>
>>> /(Proviso: your item 2) says /*single ... simulation*/, which is 
>>> incorrect, as we have no remit to straightjacket diverse worlds into 
>>> a
>>
>>> single simulation.)/
>>
>> What I mean by "single simulation" is what the user sees when 
>> connected to a specific, interoperating instance. I suppose the user 
>> could be connected to multiple of those, similar to opening multiple 
>> video streams in a media player, but then those generally have 
>> "nothing" to do with each other.
>>
>>
>> Okay, so if most of us agree on 2), can we just say we have "rough 
>> consensus" on that, and politely reject any attempt to steer the work 
>> towards 1)?
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> jw
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmox mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmox mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>