Re: [vwrap] Call for a vote on interop BETWEEN independent virtual worlds or not

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Meadhbh, but no apology needed, just the will to work together!
:-)

We have so much to do, and sticking to technical issues is so much more
interesting anyway. :-)


Morgaine.




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

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

> fair enough. morgaine, please accept my apology for responding to you
> in a manner in which you consider dismissive.
>
> --
> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Morgaine
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > the issue is not whether we "understand" the concept of a virtual
> > world, but whether it has meaning to people writing software. i know
> > you don't understand this since you're not a software developer, but
> > ultimately someone has to write code. and that code will make certain
> > assumptions about it's execution environment and which network peers
> > it trusts.
> >
> >
> > Do we really have to have condescending replies of this kind on the list?
> >
> > The person concerned knows very well that I'm a software developer of
> very
> > long experience, and is doing this for effect.  Please leave personal
> > references off this forum.  We have more than enough technical issues to
> > deal with here, and we don't need this at all.
> >
> >
> > Morgaine.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ===================================
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Morgaine
> >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> > Joshua, you're right, this subject has been recycled more times than
> we
> >> > can
> >> > remember.  What's more, EXACTLY as you wrote back in October 2009, on
> >> > each
> >> > occasion we arrived at the same conclusion, namely that no matter in
> >> > which
> >> > terms we describe our protocol, it will provide what ordinary users of
> >> > VWs
> >> > recognize as interop between their worlds.
> >>
> >> um. what's this "we" we're talking about?
> >>
> >> > In other words, if we have two virtual worlds such as OSgrid and 3rd
> >> > Rock
> >> > Grid, then if those worlds wish it, they could use VWRAP to enable an
> >> > agent
> >> > to teleport from one to the other and to retain avatar properties and
> >> > assets
> >> > after the TP, as one commonly sought example.  The user perspective on
> >> > this
> >> > is extremely simple, and all-important.  It cannot be ignored just
> >> > because
> >> > some document writers profess not to understand the term "virtual
> >> > world".
> >> > (Everyone else does.)
> >>
> >> the issue is not whether we "understand" the concept of a virtual
> >> world, but whether it has meaning to people writing software. i know
> >> you don't understand this since you're not a software developer, but
> >> ultimately someone has to write code. and that code will make certain
> >> assumptions about it's execution environment and which network peers
> >> it trusts.
> >>
> >> the assumption in this group was originally that we would have "domain
> >> decomposition." we later changed that to "service decomposition." this
> >> allows software developers to build software for "services" which
> >> deployers can configure into "virtual experiences."
> >>
> >> > The above kind of interop is either possible with VWRAP or it is not.
> >> > The
> >> > phrase "no interop BETWEEN virtual worlds" denies the possibility
> point
> >> > blank, and while it's nice to try to smooth it over as an artifact of
> >> > terminology, we are faced with diametric opposites here.
> >>
> >> no. the phrase "no interop BETWEEN virtual worlds" means two things:
> >>
> >> a. we are not doing interop between two distinct virtual worlds that
> >> use different protocols (the WoW vs. SL example.)
> >> b. the protocol does not REQUIRE a participant to implement a complete
> >> virtual world. a participant in the protocol may decide to implement
> >> only a single service.
> >>
> >> it has always meant this, despite the fact it's not what  you're
> >> interested in.
> >>
> >> > While I agree with you entirely that there is (near unanimous)
> consensus
> >> > that we are doing interop between virtual worlds (even if using
> >> > different
> >> > language), the drafts do not reflect that, and as Crista detailed,
> >> > barely
> >> > have any relevance to OpenSimulator-based worlds at all.
> >>
> >> repeat after me: VWRAP is not HyperGrid. VWRAP is not OpenSim. VWRAP
> >> is not Linden Lab. VWRAP is not Second Life.
> >>
> >> > As many people have said, we need to fix the language of the drafts so
> >> > that
> >> > it reflects our interop goals clearly, because it fails to do that at
> >> > the
> >> > moment.
> >>
> >> i have requested on several occasions that you provide a list of
> >> issues you have with ANY of the drafts.
> >>
> >> when you provide comments of the form: "the document says <this> and i
> >> would prefer it says <that> because ..." then you will find that your
> >> comments are addressed.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > vwrap mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >
> >
>