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

[Gareth Nelson <[e-mail]>]

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
>