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

["Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <[e-mail]>]

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