Re: [ogpx] OGPX WG draft charter, 2009-08-19 revision

"dyerbrookme@juno.com" <dyerbrookme@juno.com> Fri, 21 August 2009 04:34 UTC

Return-Path: <dyerbrookme@juno.com>
X-Original-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FAAF3A696A for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:34:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.091
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.091 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_40=-0.185, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wlW6U4Yab74e for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound-mail.vgs.untd.com (outbound-mail.vgs.untd.com [64.136.55.15]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A60A13A6C67 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juno.com; s=alpha; t=1250829267; bh=47DEQpj8HBSa+/TImW+5JCeuQeRkm5NMpJWZG3hSuFU=; l=0; h=X-UNTD-OriginStamp:From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:Message-Id: Content-Type; b=fkn1kqjE0+Cm/BLKLDn2o+aYapHxjZR4rIKt2XLY/P6LU9svDYTUqXWlhO96MFCq4 CxrqYARhquxi272ggN5MMRixriNXY6dUMCZHA/EB/E/MPc+VMTBLm1Fu7XlQ3Cylm6 EtRr+sm2tYe0VHgKALBQBXxSlfp6jtp/Nsxykr48=
X-UOL-TAGLINE: true
Received: from outbound-bu1.vgs.untd.com (webmail14.vgs.untd.com [10.181.12.154]) by smtpout02.vgs.untd.com with SMTP id AABFJ6J8PAVZ8FNA for <ogpx@ietf.org> (sender <dyerbrookme@juno.com>); Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-UNTD-OriginStamp: ireJTaFtV8IZgEqY8qAucfxt0SOiKypRtSLbY5+l/Fs5fKBdEF6Gog==
Received: (from dyerbrookme@juno.com) by webmail14.vgs.untd.com (jqueuemail) id PQGAR5DE; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:33:50 PDT
Received: from [141.149.49.73] by webmail14.vgs.untd.com with HTTP: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:32:57 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [141.149.49.73]
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: "dyerbrookme@juno.com" <dyerbrookme@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:32:57 GMT
To: morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com
X-Mailer: Webmail Version 4.0
Message-Id: <20090821.003257.11146.0@webmail14.vgs.untd.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-ContentStamp: 3:5:2208402381
X-UNTD-Peer-Info: 10.181.12.154|webmail14.vgs.untd.com|outbound-bu1.vgs.untd.com|dyerbrookme@juno.com
Cc: ogpx@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ogpx] OGPX WG draft charter, 2009-08-19 revision
X-BeenThere: ogpx@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual Worlds and the Open Grid Protocol <ogpx.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx>
List-Post: <mailto:ogpx@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:34:59 -0000

What is deeply, deeply, profoundly unjust and undemocratic about this entire OGPX exercise is that you guys are feigning to be a "mere technical group" and deal "only" with technical matters of interoperability, but in fact you are pre-deciding, prejudicing, and hijacking the governance questions of worlds that you should not be allowed to pre-decide because you are only coders, only the people who showed up and grabbed this arcane standards group, and not the citizenry of these worlds.

>Re: Whose TOS determines if that is allowed? I'd say opengrid X's tos.
And if opengrid X's TOS does not allow halting a sim, then where does
an Abuse Report go to? I'd say... still to opengrid X's administration.
And when they decide to ban this person, will it be possible to
ban that (LL) account from opengrid X?

This is the sort of question that you ought not to decide. Because you will either wind up making it easy for a few platform providers to mass-ban and ban-link people they don't like, and collude on blacklists OR (more likely given LL's tolerance of griefers like Woodbury University)default to letting everyone go everywhere with no civilization and make ban capacity a plug-in.

It's why people keep coming back to the truth of this situation: that no one needs interoperability but you, because most people can log on just fine in a few steps, and make a separate account for another world and not fret that they can't steal other people's content to bring with them.

You tell us you have to stay out of the content permissions issues because it is "impossible" technically (merely a political question, of course, as it is possible once there is political will as we see on JIRA proposals and in the Content Roadmap references to *obstacles*).

But suddenly, you have to get into the fine-tuning of governance systems that ought not to be baked into tools in this fashion.

This will end badly.

____________________________________________________________
Click now for prescreened plumbing contractors.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTRHI8EaXHEFrOWxHVHVcqnfmzy553lp5E4X5RJ4PAr1cDVB5WlfXa/