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

[Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 04:42:37PM +0100, Vaughn Deluca wrote:
> Absolute radio silence on the list...
> VWRAP is clearly in a crisis.  The major players have all moved on,
> and those who are left do not seem to be able to generate the needed
> energy to carry the project forward.
[...]
> So it seems its time to take a vote, how many of us are *at all*
> interested in keeping VWRAP alive? I cant believe we will simply give
> up. Are we really forced to conclude we no longer have enough core
> participation?

The reason I abandonned this project (as in: stopped replying and
even reading it) is because (back then) certain "major players"
completely dominated the whole effort.

This effort was clearly carried by a few companies at the time,
and major decisions were made behind the scenes, not on the list.
They were made by individuals with enough company behind them to
be taken (too) seriously; but individuals nevertheless (I don't
believe(d) for a second that they really were backed up by other
PEOPLE).

If people take airplanes to meet somewhere face to face while
staying in hotels and then claim that that is the only place
where "real work can be done" then they shut people like me
completely out.

If people write HUGE documents with exclusively their own ideas,
claiming it is really what their (huge) commercial companies wants
and basically dooming the project without the support of that
company, and mostly ignoring the "little people" on this list...

It clearly made no difference how much effort I'd put into this
project. I'd alway be considered to be a nobody and not be listened
to these "major players".

What is wrong here is that I *AM* a major player (or could be):
I have a lot of time, a lot experience and a lot of analytic insight
and understanding of complex communication protocols. I just don't
have a company behind me; so nobody cared if I'd leave; so it was
very easy to just ignore me and only concentrate on making a consensus
with those "who mattered".

The Right Thing to do would be to make all decisions on the list,
after discussions on the list and treating everyone equal; or well,
treating the more intelligent people more equal than those who
don't have an idea what they are saying perhaps - but not only
listening to those who have a lot of weight in commercial terms.

In particular-- and please note that I never said a single word
about this before: I just silently left, but now, in the light of
this post I feel it is required to mention it-- I left because of
the role that Meadhbh Hamrick had taken. At the time he was still
working for Linden Lab and doing all of the above wrong, often in
an almost autistic and certainly self-centered way. He left no room
whatsoever to get into the discussion / project in a reasonable way.
When I decided to give up, the exact words that I thought were:
I might get back if Meadhbh leaves the project, but not before.

There was some short lived hope when he left Linden Lab...
I'm still waiting and have no intention to put (waste) time
here as long as he's part of this team.

Sorry to be this blunt-- but I thought you wanted to know
(from everyone) why they backed out and stopped being responsive.
So here is my story.

-- 
Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>