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

[Infinity Linden <[e-mail]>]

morgaine, let's let carlo speak for carlo. -thx

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Morgaine<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Meadhbh is once again misrepresenting people:
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Meadhbh Siobhan <[e-mail]>
> wrote, in answer to Carlo:
>>
>> Are you seriously suggesting that Linden Lab should not participate in
>> the development of an open virtual worlds protocol? wha?
>
> No, Carlo did not suggest that.  Carlo simply asked for an answer on whether
> OGP would also cover interop between more than one virtual world.  Joshua's
> latest group charter does not list such communication in the scope of OGPX,
> and therefore Carlo's question is a good one.
>
>  I have also been misrepresented, but that is of no matter compared to
> getting the scope of OGPX clarified cleanly and openly, so that we know
> exactly what the protocol will be specified to do and what it will not
> address.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Meadhbh Siobhan <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>