Re: [ogpx] VWRAP is going no where.

["Dickson, Mike (ISS Software)" <[e-mail]>]

Having done a fair bit of standards work, I'd add this observation: it's also not uncommon for groups (corporations, etc) to do some prototype work along with a proposal for a protocol. In a best case scenarios there are multiple such proposals with real proof points in the implementation.  The "process" is then used to reconcile the various proposals down to the final standard.  Ideally this is done against and RFP that lists the requirements that must be met.

I'm hopeful that this is what's actually taking place (and encourage others with ideas about how things could be implemented: perhaps the OpenSIM community for example, to do something similar).  It would be a lot easier to debate the merits of a given approach with a prototype that demonstrates how it might function.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 9:27 PM
To: Morgaine; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [ogpx] VWRAP is going no where.

On 1/7/10 9:33 PM, Morgaine wrote:

> I do however support your statement 100% about the work being done 
> behind closed doors.

Some working groups (and pre-WGs, as with IDNAbis) delegate a small design team to make faster progress, and such a design team often works via private conference calls and the like. However, as far as I know, there is no design team for the VWRAP WG. Therefore, IMHO all the work should happen in as open a fashion as possible. Now, no one expects a document author to use some sort of collaborative editing software so that everyone can help out in real time. On the other hand there is a great deal of expertise on this list regarding virtual worlds and I would expect the document author to be engaging the list in a dialogue regarding open issues, thorny problems to be solved, etc., as a way to make progress on submitting an Internet-Draft. Publish early, publish often.

My $0.02.

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/