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

Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> Tue, 05 April 2011 16:36 UTC

Return-Path: <dzonatas@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 8931A3A6967 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, 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 ApAmbM9jQZ39 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE38D3A6966 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so693877iwn.31 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4U41t5HcOAAXHiSiYB7yqiGCEy7+Fwm04MvVvDsXVqI=; b=FaXRqE6qZ8WgyTCnCC1p2FIiUQb8cC7XXi8TdJqghjLgEY/GqGtyKhyeu5X0SUGmlr oQmWGUoEvmhLPKUhXtKkpw4uIzjNG/sVbIhgSl88fAMOZKo+s0mTI5SamZiPccO/2uB8 yrJwlA7VTW5YXNvYrdDOC2+icr6Icj0XyEKww=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=eqwp71peqkxamYmjb/QKka1NRXuX3Ig8p549WYmF5RuZs0ZINzBzdmZ3DdKnauVAwm uqA/xw1K9oHhakKd0vitP6k2syoU4u4j6qc7OyqZran948wp5e4tLCwj6fMU1hWU4UAR iWR9Gfd7M+Dr+e+8a0FFTTkSmwl43gavRf6eU=
Received: by 10.42.168.6 with SMTP id u6mr358659icy.46.1302021463004; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] (adsl-71-137-195-251.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net [71.137.195.251]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d9sm2895373ibb.2.2011.04.05.09.37.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4D9B4586.9080004@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:38:30 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100329)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
References: <20110330011458.GB8908@alinoe.com> <4D931434.2030206@boroon.dasgupta.ch> <4646639E08F58B42836FAC24C94624DD92FDE22F3F@GVW0433EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net> <20110401161332.37ca0f9e@hikaru.localdomain> <AANLkTimcMbrJzXYTvs0cszn+rhH4ygEPvzvLwu94gr-4@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=hL5YTAW9_V7EA3C3fiknU0o_ARA@mail.gmail.com> <20110405152025.26ba8f77@hikaru.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20110405152025.26ba8f77@hikaru.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: vwrap@ietf.org
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: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:36:04 -0000

Carlo,

Do you think we are ready to implement some asset services now, 
with/without complete documentation?

What more do you think is needed?


Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 23:02:14 -0400
> Izzy Alanis <izzyalanis@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> That's not an argument against flexibility. But I do question why we
>> need to have consensus on this abstract meta-issue? Do we really need
>> explicit written consensus on overly general principles like
>> "flexibility is good", or "scalability is good" or "sunshine and
>> puppies are good" to make progress? Specific features and details will
>> or will not become part of the protocol based on their merits.
>>     
>
> Clearly we do: we already can't reach consensus on
> something as logical (aka Spock) and trivial as my very first
> meta-issue as you call it. That baffles me, and to be
> honest, that alone is reason again for me to abandon this
> project.
>
> It is ridiculous that not everyone just said: Aye / Ok / Of course /
> trivial!
>
> I can only guess to the reasons (varying from stupidity (you'd never
> see such reactions on a mailinglist with math researchers) to paranoia),
> but it definitely is working against any progress.
>
> The discussions (and non-progress) on this mailinglist makes me
> think of a book I once called read, "Surely you're joking, Mr.Feynman"
> (http://buffman.net/ebooks/Richard_P_Feynman-Surely_Youre_Joking_Mr_Feynman_v5.pdf
> about page 67, starting with "This committee had men like Compton and
> Tolman...").
>
>   


-- 
--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant