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

Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com> Fri, 14 January 2011 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <ohmeadhbh@gmail.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 DE6A128C113 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:55:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 CzPv92Vi1PbT for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:55:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D2E828C108 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:55:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qyj19 with SMTP id 19so3402723qyj.10 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:58:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pVktaRJfojecIZCX8/APAvLc5rry4dYOzYvICsFTbjs=; b=u/hiwzrk9IWUUyo/XbFInIVCQJObbyMX902gtec14trPyf8OZGLJbS/A4wziwBtxcd lWQ3FOoomVcOMvjlxfHZqZhpu+gDtKNfxjk4k4MtoIU6wP2Qfum48FbK7i4n9qMpMxv9 t0UypKMZuHJ7S+PwokEwfzJ4/aC2PRtI4YZ+4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=QCB3Ib0IuCE4MiW66QGO920rxNV2wgh2Pl14yjukRMe7dTx9Kx+3TIo4rS0lVSlOeh hTORqRyV82BdZItPTD/ZuSbE7l91oWdkSY1dcw3CKb0Sdn3/dRSJ3hV/B8izn+NWKYL0 VxIdDoNkfHpX6K0BcOwLSmli56Xtb0ExVxtnY=
Received: by 10.229.88.207 with SMTP id b15mr936071qcm.34.1295027897683; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:58:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.99.21 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:57:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=hAM-UowEcXBdtZ3y9KK_cQ5wUsWJKTv=rOXT_@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=hAM-UowEcXBdtZ3y9KK_cQ5wUsWJKTv=rOXT_@mail.gmail.com>
From: Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:57:57 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTik5umnAjKGrNG-Np0u+yMDZhnog2ZJSYF7sZmho@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: vwrap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group
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: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:55:55 -0000

hey barry,

comments on options:

option 1 : find new editors

as the author of the overwhelming majority of words in VWRAP IDs, i
would LOVE to hand off responsibility for everything except the type
system to someone else. the most recent drafts of the IDs are in SVN,
and i'm happy to email them to the list or to individuals. i am (more
than) happy to discuss the motivations or historical context of
various "controversial" phrases.

i have some personal stake in the type system since my company is
using it for a commercial service. i have numerous issues with the
existing type system draft, many are documented in a blog post at:

http://blog.meadhbh.org/2010/07/abstract-resource-definitions-vs-llidl.html

the changes i'm calling for are kind of extensive, so i changed the
name of my type system to DSD (dynamic structured data.) for the last
couple of months, the sl8.us service and a couple other services we
haven't announced have been using the X-application/dsd+xml and
X-application/dsd+json content type. we would like to remove the X-
from the front of that since we're developing types that are of
general use, implemented using open source software.

if we can't find another editor for VWRAP, i'm happy to publish DSD as
an individual / informational RFC for the purpose of registering the
mime type and to document DSD's use. if we do find another editor and
this working group continues, i would yield to group consensus on
whether we want to move away from LLSD to DSD.

either way, i should finish the documentation i've been saying i would
finish for the last three months.

option 2 : recharter

go for it! (assuming there's consensus.) again, because i'm barred
from contributing code to the OpenSim core and i have no interest in
maintaining a fork, i'm not personally interested in participating in
standardizing hypergrid. but if anyone from the OpenSim group wants to
document it in this forum, i'm happy to lend advice, encouragement and
whatever minor work the OpenSim peeps think i can contribute without
introducing intellectual property weirdness.

option 3 : death, coma or hibernation

as a casual observer, i'm putting my money on this option. Linden's no
longer supporting open virtual worlds. Smithee, et all (my current
employer) is only interested in a subsection of the VWRAP work. IBM &
Intel seems to be focusing on other things. I know we participate here
as individuals, but at the end of the day, it's a lot easier to
participate if someone is paying you to do so.

the core hypergrid folk always regarded this group as a "linden
marketing stunt," so i don't know if there's much interest from that
corner to recharter. the OpenSim core, for better or worse, seems to
be focused on their implementation, not on protocol standardization.
maybe that will change in the future.

maybe in a few years there'll be renewed interest in this domain. if
there's a snowball's chance in hades that work could get completed,
i'll probably try to participate.

anyway... i wish everyone here good luck. i think there were some
great people here who contributed some great ideas, even if i didn't
agree with all of them.

-cheers
-meadhbh
--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com



On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> 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
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>