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

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

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