Re: [ogpx] The Role of Policy and Processing Expectations in Protocol Development

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

  	

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 03:21:07AM +0000, [e-mail] wrote:
> I didn't say all worlds "have to adopt" SL's c/m/t.

/me notes that Prokofy uses the word "World" to have the same meaning as 
Morgaine and me:
regions running under a different administration, but still reachable by 
"teleport" in theory.

I wouldn't make too much of this, because you're merely interpreting a brief email.

I don't think it's up to technicians to define what a world is. The people in it, who are going to be a mixture of technicians and other professions, will define it. 

Who gets to define Belarus -- Belarus, Poland or Russia? 

It's this constant arrogation of the powers of world-making that really don't belong to you that grate. Who died and made you king, or who elected you?

When the users -- the customers with use cases -- show up who need this interoperability most, they will help define what constitutes "world".

So far, what you all are doing is arguing back from the worst possible use case -- libsecondlifers and reverse-engineers who mainly just want an extreme sandbox and the ability to copy content in SL -- and building the bridge for their purposes which aren't illustrative of a whole civilization, but only a decivilization.



____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTFoYduzP2GbBalVqegWQrQdnZJeXtZJ8Xdkj3fjshZ7m2jT9pxNM8/