Re: [vwrap] VWRAP, after discussion with the Area Director

Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> Wed, 11 May 2011 06:00 UTC

Return-Path: <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40FCFE0756 for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2011 23:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZuGe6cOAnqqb for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2011 23:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D22FE0763 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2011 23:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so106147qwc.31 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2011 23:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=1/xuY/qryb25MbTtEukf+BVfl+blkHpFlCm1m0x3KlQ=; b=XUtVEEJ3IVTHiPXlbEcJFLfQyKvVflZsMNIcVczygaS7VrkQHWdIqSsDQOTfmbD18w xm5421z4ZgiETfzGyCMTiERqocV0aXTZgPOEbkXWuFbI/dkpFzLBKGODgEFVCz/O2+1L zRo6yDmBj0px3MhzVKE9sloJ8g2YqjClGPof0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=jd8gUXaLolPDYqVA7EQlPC65PXlsTNM4xoAYFY+XzME9hx1HTNJVwC5EfiQ50asIBB CTGdsvZm57Y8Lywr6YjNrjGjCeb3syhLkK9/PczCvteNA+RkUst9Xmm4jd2EjmxpadA4 EVJ+ZBZAq9Lns7yGHGzf81AN0ru7uQrKdXgC8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.119.134 with SMTP id z6mr5183570qcq.63.1305093632876; Tue, 10 May 2011 23:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.66.212 with HTTP; Tue, 10 May 2011 23:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DC9F366.30308@stpeter.im>
References: <BANLkTim5WZP=LaE8iwH_YuJZVBeGZ3Qe1Q@mail.gmail.com> <4DC9F366.30308@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 07:00:32 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTinC+4Raik83x3htkzrAWRNZNFeWdA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
To: vwrap@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd5c94e62e1b304a2f9ca14
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, vwrap-ads@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vwrap] VWRAP, after discussion with the Area Director
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 11 May 2011 06:00:35 -0000

Thank you, Barry and Peter. :-)

It is sad to witness what amounts to the end of an era, but I think that you
have made the right decision.

It probably became inevitable once it emerged that the intended goal at time
of chartering was not the one that most participants desired and expected.
A WG charter needs to be well aligned with the goals of its people, or a
rough consensus becomes unlikely.

For my part, I intend to work towards the goals that you both outlined.
Whether we will be successful remains to be seen, and manpower is against
us.  Perhaps we will need to split into more than one group to allow
progress to be made, because it has become very clear that there is a strong
disparity of goals between those who are content with existing protocols and
those who wish to design for a better tomorrow.  This just saps everyone's
energy and wastes the little manpower we have available.

As you are going to cease monitoring the mailing list in a chairing capacity
soon, I want to thank you both now for performing your IETF duties very
effectively and fairly for us over the past months and years, putting up
with our little arguments, smoothing the waters where needed, and keeping us
focused on the goals of an IETF WG.

It has been a pleasure working with you both, and I hope that you won't shy
away from the occasional non-Chair visit to the list.  Your advice is always
appreciated.

Best regards :-)


Morgaine.



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


On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>wrote:

> Thanks, Barry.
>
> Speaking as the Area Director responsible for the VWRAP WG, I'd like to
> make it fully clear that we plan to proceed as follows:
>
> 1. Close the working group in its current instantiation
>
> 2. Keep the vwrap@ietf.org mailing list open
>
> 3. Continue discussions on the list
>
> The hope is that folks here can converge on a new direction, leading to
> formation of a new working group, or at least to publication of
> individual Internet-Drafts that provide a framwork for future efforts.
>
> Peter
>
> On 5/10/11 7:12 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > I'm encouraged by Morgaine's assessment of the progress the group is
> > making in discussions.  I like that it's taking a broader view,
> > looking toward interoperation among different virtual worlds.  The
> > discussion of the technology is going in a good direction.
> >
> > Where it's going is to a very different place than what was set out in
> > the VWRAP charter.  The IESG will need to re-evaluate the work when
> > the group has things grounded and can propose a new charter, for the
> > new direction.  They'll need to see who's invested in the new work --
> > who will do the protocol design, who will take on the editing, and who
> > will give it the review it needs to be a good standard.  In the
> > meantime, this mailing list is the right place for the discussion to
> > continue.
> >
> > The IESG will close out the current charter, and will leave the
> > mailing list open.  Remember that the IETF gets most of its work done
> > on mailing lists, and not all of them are associated with current
> > working groups.  There won't be chairs monitoring it... which means
> > that there won't be chairs bugging you about IETF process stuff, but
> > also that there won't be chairs nudging you along, so be careful not
> > to let that stall the work.
> >
> > I suggest that the group put its focus on converging on two initial
> documents:
> >
> > 1. A new introduction and overview document, laying out what
> > problems/situations/scenarios you'll be addressing, how you'll go
> > about it, and what things will look like in the end.  This should lead
> > directly to a proposal for a new charter.
> >
> > 2. A protocol requirements document, specifying what the protocol(s)
> > will have to do (and won't have to do).  This will be a strong basis
> > for the protocol design, which could be done in that new working
> > group.
> >
> > Please keep this going.  I hope we'll see a charter proposal for a new
> > working group fairly soon.
> >
> > Barry, as chair
> > _______________________________________________
> > vwrap mailing list
> > vwrap@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>