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

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Jon Watte <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> I think the /first/ thing we need to decide is whether we're building:
>
> 1) A protocol that lets some number of second-life derived client softwares
> cross-connect to some number of second-life derived services, possibly
> bringing along some number of second-life derived assets (I've heard
> proposals that boil down to this from a few people)
>
> or
>
> 2) A protocol that lets significantly different virutal world systems
> interoperate to share in creating a single, bigger, more diverse simulation
> (Some other people, including me, are presenting proposals along these
> lines).
>


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.

The latest version #4 of the draft charter doesn't even mention OGP, because
we reworded it specifically to be vendor-neutral:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg00066.html .  And
please note that this was done with the Linden co-chair's approval, stated
desire, and encouragement.

Our #4 still mentions LLSD, admittedly, but if you think it's inappropriate
on either vendor-neutrality or on technical grounds then please pick up the
baton and give us draft charter #5.  I'm looking forward to it.

Our work is very explicitly targeted at embracing the needs of many diverse
worlds, hopefully far beyond merely those few worlds that currently have
representation here.

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.)*

Morgaine.