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

[Meadhbh Siobhan <[e-mail]>]

Are you seriously suggesting that Linden Lab should not participate in
the development of an open virtual worlds protocol? wha?

We originally wanted to have a working group where we could resolve
issues that separate different virtual worlds protocols. That group
was MMOX, and at the BoF we couldn't even get agreement as to what the
term "interoperable" meant.

Because we could not get agreement, this effort (OGPX) was initiated.
Our objective is NOT to define a protocol that encompasses every
existent virtual world. It is to produce a protocol that may be used
by deployers to produce one, two or many distinct virtual worlds.
Deployers would then get to decide which virtual worlds they wish to
interact with. They may also choose to provide access to some or all
of their "virtual real estate" to other participants through a
federation scheme. This latter use case is considered the most common
use case, because it allows virtual worlds deployers to share part of
their world without requiring them to share ALL of their world.

Morgaine has several times mentioned she does not agree with the
approach we are taking. I do not apologize that those of us who
organized the MMOX and OGPX BoFs have requirements different from
hers. Nor do I apologize for taking the "let's boil the ocean one
thimble at a time," approach. At the end of the day, there are people
interested in deploying open virtual worlds, that are implemented
using an open protocol. If people wish to participate constructively
in this effort with us, we will participate with them. If people wish
to discount the experience of over six years of deploying virtual
worlds, and a business model that DEPENDS on providing services to
others, they can participate in other standardization efforts.

-Cheers
-Meadhbh / Infinity




On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:18 AM, Carlo Wood<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I think that what Morgaine is trying to say is that
> if Linden Lab's official (or hidden) policy is to NOT
> interop with other virtual worlds, then they are not
> the right party to trust when it comes to defining
> a protocol that most, if not all, other parties DO
> want to support interop.
>
> Since it seems, at this point, that the policy of
> LL will prohibit interop in the future between
> SL and other grids, there is a lack of trust right now;
> and as a result of that lack of trust, a very clear
> statement about the intent of the OGPX (as opposed to LL)
> about interop MUST be part of this draft.
>
> Personally, I will reject any protocol that doesn't
> make it a priority to concentrate on interoperability
> (such as sharing LM's and teleporting). So, instead
> of adding a paragraph that clearly states that the
> objective of OGPX is to not support interop, I'd rather
> see a paragraph added that clearly states that it
> IS to support interop.
>
> The keyword here being "clearly". That is certainly
> not the case at the moment.
>
> --
> Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>