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

[Joshua Bell <[e-mail]>]

Ugh, I just realized that my last several posts were private replies, not
reply-all messages. D'oh. Resending, but some context may be lost.


On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Morgaine <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Meadhbh Siobhan <
> [e-mail]> wrote, in answer to Carlo Wood:
>
> and to your point about landmarks and teleport.
>>
>> teleporting between points in the virtual world, even if the origin
>> and destination are managed by different administrative domains has
>> always been part of the protocol proposal. we're not taking that out.
>>
>
>
> That was not Carlo's point.  Carlo asked about landmarks and teleports *between
> virtual worlds*, so stating that you're not taking them out from within a
> single world is not answering his question.
>
> The question being asked is a very simple one.  I do not understand why a
> clear answer is not being given.
>

I think we all agree (ahem, have rough consensus) on this statement:

* OGP should support teleports between regions that are part of different
administrative domains, when policy permits.

I think the hard part is that "world" is not a well defined concept in OGP.
We can't say "OGP should support teleports between different worlds" when we
can't define "world". I maintain that "world" is not a technical term, just
as the HTTP RFCs do not define "web". (The term is used in the preamble, but
not defined.) Personally, I think the term "world" will come to mean
something I'll hand-wavily call policy-clusters-of-agent/region-domains,
meaning groups of places avatars can easily (not necessarily freely)
traverse; some "worlds" will span multiple administrative domains, some
won't. But I don't want to try and define that now!

This is a matter of huge importance to the large number of SL-compatible
> open grids that already exist, with more appearing regularly.  It needs to
> be clearly stated whether mechanisms for interop between SL-compatible
> worlds will be within the scope of the OGPX group, or not.
>

Would it help if we added a parenthetical "(which may be described as one or
more virtual worlds)" or something somewhere in the charter? IMHO, it does
not add technical detail to the charter, but if it makes it more appealing
or comprehensible to those not embedded in the process, it's worthwhile.


> Defining our scope is our primary task at this time.  This question cannot
> be dodged.
>

Agreed. And it may be that we're being too precise/pedantic in the charter
text.