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

Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> Fri, 01 April 2011 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <carlo@alinoe.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 CED763A6850 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 5Jx4GbbPXDaT for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fep17.mx.upcmail.net (fep17.mx.upcmail.net [62.179.121.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 946383A6835 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge01.upcmail.net ([192.168.13.236]) by viefep17-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.8.01.02.02 201-2260-120-106-20100312) with ESMTP id <20110401143623.DNWF11401.viefep17-int.chello.at@edge01.upcmail.net> for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 16:36:23 +0200
Received: from mail9.alinoe.com ([77.250.43.12]) by edge01.upcmail.net with edge id SEcN1g00Z0FlQed01EcPAC; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:36:23 +0200
X-SourceIP: 77.250.43.12
Received: from carlo by mail9.alinoe.com with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <carlo@alinoe.com>) id 1Q5fSX-0005ZD-Tq for vwrap@ietf.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:36:21 +0200
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 16:36:21 +0200
From: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
To: vwrap@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20110401163621.770f7b7f@hikaru.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimPvnysbzkwyUuq6PVrjo5x1ngo04ifv7FSz+D+@mail.gmail.com>
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> <AANLkTimPvnysbzkwyUuq6PVrjo5x1ngo04ifv7FSz+D+@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=HQ3F56nxkum+cgCiDL7AXQpbvw7DWrWCBJRnYYnM0Zc= c=1 sm=0 a=SNAFxGGoWQUA:10 a=lF6S9qf5Q1oA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=mK_AVkanAAAA:8 a=BjFOTwK7AAAA:8 a=tWLXOiYdhP8Fa-jICtYA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=9xyTavCNlvEA:10 a=bW3kdApBr58A:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117
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: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:34:46 -0000

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:13:28 +0100
Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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:

While this is probably all true.

PLEASE EVERYONE - adding some SUPPORT to the protocol
does NOT mean it has to be USED.

If the VWRAP protocol supports *all* interop at any level,
then the large business can STILL deny their users to level
and take their assets with them.

The protocol will NEVER demand you do something that you
don't want.

What we speak about here is that the standard - VWRAP - will or
will not allow "others" to *use* VWRAP for THEIR purposes.

So, I'm sorry - but if anyone is against THAT.. and even has
the slightest hesitation to agree that VWRAP should support
all interests out there (ie, the business model above, as well as
the more user oriented one) then I have a good case to believe
in the "evil corporate" theory.

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>