Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group

[Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]>]

I am not convinced rechartering is actually needed. The introduction
document certainly needs an overhaul, and we to need to reaffirm we
are all on the same track, but I think that the existing charter might
still work for us. I suggest we work with it, at least until it
becomes the obvious obstacle for progress.

-- Vaughn



On 1/15/11, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hey Barry,
>
> so it seems like there's at least some interest for rechartering.
> what's the mechanics for that? do we call for a new BoF or just hash
> out a new charter on the mailing list?
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
>
> --
> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>> Although i have only been operating in the fringe of this group, i
>> would like to argue for #2
>>
>> It clear that some refocussing and consensus building is needed, but
>> we should at least  give that a try. To me it seems definitely to
>> early to give up. If we try #2  it will become clear if  #3 can
>> indedeed be avoided.
>>
>> I see christina's point of starting at the basis, and fixing SSO
>> first. However, I feel that from the perspective of VWRAP SSO is
>> actually a well described sub-problem that can be left to others to
>> solve, while we focus on the specific  of avatars and assets.
>>
>> In  terms of actual commitment, i think the wiki idea is great, and i
>> will try to free some time to contribute there in the near future.
>>
>> --Vaughn
>>
>> On 1/15/11, Cristina Videira Lopes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> I'm leaning towards #2 and #3 simultaneously :)
>>> Let me explain.
>>>
>>> The goal of achieving virtual world interoperability always felt like a
>>> niche goal to me, but one that, given the nature of these applications,
>>> touched on a couple of more foundational issues: single sign ons and Web
>>> services security -- in short, federations that cross enterprise
>>> boundaries.
>>>
>>> There is a variety of implementations for SSOs out there, more recently
>>> the one in the Hypergrid, and a variety of ways of securing Web
>>> services. But no standards that I know of -- apart from the SOAP stuff.
>>> Perhaps this group should band with others who may be interested in
>>> standardizing these things -- SSO seems like it's ripe for that. In
>>> other words, let's join with others on common foundational issues,
>>> rather than separating from them along the lines of application domains
>>> (VWs vs everything else).
>>>
>>> In that sense I'd argue for #3, because doing an IETF SSO working group
>>> properly would require substantial change and outreach. There's a long
>>> history in SSOs. The good news is that from what I read in [1], there is
>>> now some interest in the IETF on this.
>>>
>>> However, some issues are application-domain-specific -- e.g. avatars,
>>> assets;  in the Web model, these are MIME type issues. They need
>>> standardization too -- or at least generalized agreement on the data
>>> that gets passed around.
>>>
>>> In that sense I'd argue for #2. There are MIME type standards that this
>>> group can define specifically for virtual worlds. That's one part of
>>> interoperability that only ppl in the VW field can tackle.
>>>
>>> Crista / Diva
>>>
>>> [1] http://isoc.org/wp/ietfjournal/?p=1715
>>>
>>> On 1/14/2011 9:13 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>> Good day, all.
>>>> The chairs and area directors have been talking about the status and
>>>> future of the VWRAP working group.  Owing to changes in focus and
>>>> commitment by both companies and individuals, things have been
>>>> languishing, and it's not clear to us that we have what we need to get
>>>> the chartered work done.  The introduction document looked close to
>>>> ready, until some controversy on its content and direction brewed, and
>>>> the result of that discussion was inconclusive.  The normative drafts
>>>> that have seen some implementation (type system, launch message, etc.)
>>>> also appear nearly technically complete, but some issues have been
>>>> identified and not resolved by subsequent discussion, consensus, and
>>>> editing.
>>>>
>>>> At this point, the mailing list has been too quiet for too long, all
>>>> the draft documents have expired, and we need to make a decision about
>>>> what to do.
>>>>
>>>> The chairs and ADs see three possibilities:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Find new document editors, pick up the chartered work with the
>>>> existing document base, and get moving again.  Get the introduction
>>>> document finished by the end of February, and make progress on the
>>>> others.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Come to consensus on significant changes to the direction of the
>>>> VWRAP specs, find new document editors, revamp the introduction
>>>> document, and get that finished, or substantially so, by the end of
>>>> February.  Have some clear consensus, clear direction, and enthusiasm
>>>> to continue.  Consider rechartering, if the direction has changed
>>>> enough to require that.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Accept that we no longer have enough core participation, consensus,
>>>> and enthusiasm to make progress, and close the working group.  Future
>>>> work in the virtual world area could charter a new working group
>>>> later.
>>>>
>>>> Note that options 1 and 2 both require that we demonstrate sufficient
>>>> energy and participation to really get work done and to demonstrate
>>>> consensus.  That means that we need people to commit to
>>>> writing/editing documents, actively discussing the technical issues
>>>> with the goal of reaching consensus on the content of the documents,
>>>> and, importantly, reviewing documents and showing that we have
>>>> consensus.  Three or four participants isn't enough, and conflicting
>>>> ideas that can't be resolved into a consensus-based position won't
>>>> work.
>>>>
>>>> What say you, VWRAP participants?  Can we pick up the work and make
>>>> progress?  Shall we close the working group, and perhaps consider
>>>> something in future?  Do you favour options 1, 2, or 3?  Or do you see
>>>> an alternative option you'd like to bring up?
>>>>
>>>> Barry and Joshua, VWRAP chairs
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> vwrap mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> vwrap mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> vwrap mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>
>