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

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

Dan - 

Thanks.  On it.

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Olivares <[e-mail]>
To: Robert Gehorsam
CC: Jon Watte <[e-mail]>; Morgaine <[e-mail]>; Mystical Demina <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Mon Feb 23 13:35:36 2009
Subject: Re: [mmox] Learning from the past; focusing on the future

I completely agree with you here.   Therefore, if this working group
is important to you (or anyone else here), I urge you to solicit
parties that you feel could make a significant contribution to a
MMO/VW standard.

Best Regards

Daniel Olivares

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Robert Gehorsam
<[e-mail]> 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
>