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

[Jon Watte <[e-mail]>]

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