Re: [ogpx] resolving the name issue

[Joshua Bell <[e-mail]>]

It seems like we're close on draft charter text; the recent discussion has
generated some good additions and clarifications to the text. We still need
a name, though.

Given a lack of consensus on any of the proposals for a protocol name, I
suggest we reduce the problem to just a group name, and defer any protocol
naming for now.

* The working group name is for "casual" use; i.e. it will never be
published in an RFC
* The working group should have a limited lifetime, and dissolve; so
something "eternal" or "ideal" is actually a bad idea
* It should be clear how to pronounce and spell, so that it can be
communicated in voice
* It should be recognizable when seen on an IETF agenda

I agree with Morgaine's points earlier on this thread about names, but feel
they primarily apply to protocol names, except for the excellent suggestion
that this be something relatively unique in Google searches. That is
somewhat in (healthy) conflict with the above points, though.

Going back to Infinity's suggestion of listing top choices, here are mine
from the floated proposals. I don't really have a #3. Again, I'm focusing on
proposed working group names only, so in context these would be

1. Agent Based Open Virtual Environments Working Group - ABOVE ("above")
2. Virtual World Region/Agent Protocol Working Group - VWRAP ("v-wrap")

If you believe that the latest rev of the draft charter text is acceptable
as a basis for forming a working group (and remember, a group can
re-charter!), please reply with your top picks.