Re: [vwrap] Statements of Consensus. Flexibity First.

Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> Wed, 30 March 2011 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B14943A6B95 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.722
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.722 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pQv0ZjrFIQs7 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3F8B3A6BA3 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwg5 with SMTP id 5so1126389qwg.31 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=lYwthwK9HC6zfkJxMIUjIgshuFtn94KfLMEfwYoUau0=; b=B2AngZIYqXb7jQVLbnmSG8lEMURgtSBnLZr1bt+dqzEXRJZQtPEAA/QWPOCGVMfnh+ VZa6t3ddkdtCRGir3tTMrGQo/t836LbxXaR9+E8i2y2szvHN+pzsR7DUln0nt07k53zH ntPcfFnA7O1qYRqUrfMMyFFSv3QvS2dVHhbes=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=LVqhPAbu8zjOud1p5RwPyoxhJm2jPJcKuP1vXQvWPr03P6ZM84dEG9vbOZflZ1szIH eDx72f82GlOi5fME7Ow4Xl9hgAZQiTEtyqpgHJquKP+RZJXjTj6wJkPejdJWnLqyJPbd ko8eXi/HP+9jlvDm/ZPKN9PpQ61tpQnSiVPmw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.37.130 with SMTP id x2mr1312727qcd.147.1301505208563; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.211.84 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1301499645.12359.10.camel@mdickson-hplinux>
References: <20110330011458.GB8908@alinoe.com> <4D931434.2030206@boroon.dasgupta.ch> <4646639E08F58B42836FAC24C94624DD92FDE22F3F@GVW0433EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net> <AANLkTimaA3qcKOUUjQzvq86R1UMvamTc4yJh4NBMp_Gq@mail.gmail.com> <1301499645.12359.10.camel@mdickson-hplinux>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:13:28 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTimPvnysbzkwyUuq6PVrjo5x1ngo04ifv7FSz+D+@mail.gmail.com>
From: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
To: vwrap@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016368340c0a1399e049fb64ba5
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Statements of Consensus. Flexibity First.
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap>
List-Post: <mailto:vwrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:12:08 -0000

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@hp.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 15:23 +0000, Morgaine wrote:
>
> > The needs of inwardly-focused companies do not override the needs of
> > open Internet communities.  This IETF protocol project serves both
> > sets of interests, and it will need to satisfy both sets of
> > requirements.
>
> Yes, I get that. I have lots of standards experience, even serving on
> the board of one organization in the past.  I honestly find the whole us
> vs. them rhetoric tiring.  A healthy community will include both
> individual and corporate interests.  And its to be expected that they'll
> all argue from their respective POV.  That's healthy.



Unfortunately that tension will not go away, because the needs of businesses
and the needs of user communities are inherently in conflict in our area,

To put it bluntly, VW *business* thinks it is best served by denying interop
between worlds, because denying interop holds users captive and prevents
them from easily leaving with their virtual possessions to better worlds.
(A myopic business model, I agree, but we have many current examples of it.)

In contrast, interop between worlds serves *individuals* and *user
communities* wonderfully in numerous ways:


   - It frees users from being at the mercy of a large but poor VW operator.
   - It greatly increases competition and puts downward pressure on prices.
   - It allows users to visit potentially thousands of worlds without having
   to register new accounts everywhere just to be able to visit.
   - It creates a whole culture out of virtual tourism, and probably a
   business.
   - It avoids having to recreate avatars and obtain new virtual clothing in
   each new world visited, which is a major pain point for all VW tourists.
   - it greatly increases the value of virtual goods to their owners when
   they can use them everywhere, particularly virtual clothing. Items that are
   imprisoned in their home worlds are highly unsatisfactory, analogous to
   music that you cannot move from one music player to another.
   - It aids in cooperative working when there are no artificial barriers
   erected between worlds, and this advantage spans a huge number of realms,
   from higher education and research through to the smallest groupings of
   people getting together to share common interests.
   - Philosophically, it removes the stranglehold of world operators on the
   virtual items created by their residents, and makes taxation on items much
   more difficult to impose without negative repercussions.


The disparity between VW business and VW community goals is so vast that
this tension is here to stay, as long as VW businesses believe in the
short-term gains of closed systems versus the big picture of a huge open
metaverse of millions of interoperating worlds, full of opportunities.


Morgaine.




===========================


On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@hp.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 15:23 +0000, Morgaine wrote:
> > Mike, if you don't need the flexibility available in a protocol,
> > simply don't use the flexible features that you don't want.  But
> > denying those who require a flexible and extensible protocol with a
> > degree of future-proofing to it is, I believe, not in line with the
> > goals expressed here from the start of this process.
>
> That's not actually consistent with what I thought Carlo wrote.  There's
> only one set of specs and I didn't see a commitment to backwards
> compatibility, only that flexibility to evolve features would take
> precedence over other factors.  And honestly all of this is moot.  I'm
> not personally going to agree to any overriding principle other than to
> participate in the process and try and reach consensus in the documents
> produced. This whole discussion is a proverbial "red herring".  We don't
> need to agree on how to produce consensus we need to agree on what goes
> into the documents.
>
> >
> > Perhaps closed enterprises don't need flexibility, but open
> > communities certainly do, and they are typically long-lived and hence
> > require the ability to evolve and to adapt to change.  And open
> > communities most certainly need interoperability between their many
> > virtual worlds.
>
> I personally believe that focusing on services definitions and interop
> will produce the needed "flexibility" your after.   I really want that
> level of flexibilty (to be able to compose "virtual worlds" flexibly)
> hence the reason I think focusing on the services is important.  And I
> doubt that corporate needs and individual needs are that different in
> this respect. Use models for VW technologies are still evolving.
>
> > The needs of inwardly-focused companies do not override the needs of
> > open Internet communities.  This IETF protocol project serves both
> > sets of interests, and it will need to satisfy both sets of
> > requirements.
>
> Yes, I get that. I have lots of standards experience, even serving on
> the board of one organization in the past.  I honestly find the whole us
> vs. them rhetoric tiring.  A healthy community will include both
> individual and corporate interests.  And its to be expected that they'll
> all argue from their respective POV.  That's healthy.
>
> Mike
>
> >
> >
> > Morgaine.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ========================
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Dickson, Mike (ISS Software)
> > <mike.dickson@hp.com> wrote:
> >
> >         On 03/30/2011 03:14 AM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> >         > Perhaps we should also start a wiki page (it's nice
> >         > to have a stable url that one can refer to, which still
> >         > is editable; that give me at least a feeling of progress),
> >         > about statements that we reached consensus over.
> >
> >
> >         We don't need to make a process that forces agreement under a
> >         set of terms.  That's not how the IETF
> >         works.  We need consensus and documents.  As a contributor
> >         I'll choose to agree or disagree based on
> >         the topic.  And in some cases I'm not sure I'd choose
> >         flexibility over stability, etc.
> >
> >         It seems to me we've sorted drifted to a point we're there are
> >         2 camps and a proposal was made for how to
> >         deal with it.  There are those that want to work on service
> >         level interop.  And others want to define the
> >         whole concept of virtual world interop. IMO we need to either
> >         agree that seperation exists and arrange the
> >         docs so it describes the 2 work streams or agree that we can't
> >         agree and disband.  The service level interop.
> >         is a subset of the other and given our track record I prefer
> >         to walk rather than run.  And I don't buy the "evil
> >         corporate interests" argument.  Ideally if  we do this right
> >         there *should* be some participation from business
> >         interests that are looking at the space.
> >
> >         So in summary, no, I'm not going to agree to a fixed process
> >         that favours flexibility.  The IETF already has
> >         a process for how this stuff gets worked.   And we need to
> >         decide what we're working on and move on. I
> >         think there's room for 2 work streams here and that personally
> >         would be my vote.  I'll put my energy into
> >         service level interop personally.
> >
> >         Mike (speaking as me and not for HP)
> >
> >
> >
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         vwrap mailing list
> >         vwrap@ietf.org
> >         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >
> >
>
>
>