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

[Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]>]

Carlo writes:

>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.

Come on Carlo, grow up. You do yourself a disservice by acting as a
spoiled child.
I fully agree with you that the off-list development was very
demotivating, and at several occasions I have complained loudly about
that. But when i wrote "major players" i was thinking in terms of
input to the group, -of actual work done-, and not at all about
company size. So please, act like  the  professional you are. If you
drop the hurt tone, and take a constructive approach, I am very very
sure you will be listend to, and become a major player in the sense
that i meant it.

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

First, yes you were indeed blunt and i think somewhat out of line as
well,  but i do not want to enter into that discussion here and now.
Second No, i did *not* ask why people stopped responding, i asked who
was still willing to do some real work here.  The first and foremost
problem we have is a lack of critical mass, and in particular input
from people that have the needed technical background.  And clearly
you are one of those that we need badly.  So please put whatever
trouble you may have had with meadhbh behind you. She is no longer
editor, and Linden Lab is not interested anymore in VWRAP.
Things have changed, and I can see very little reason to stop you from
participating here again, and that would be a real solid step towards
reviving this group. It would be really nice if you would reconsider
your position.

--Vaughn

On 3/26/11, Carlo Wood <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:41:06AM +0100, Vaughn Deluca wrote:
>> Right, we need to produce documents. Part of the reason we are stalled
>> is that the current drafts were critisized, most notably by Morgaine,
>> but no concrete steps were taken to follow up on the critisism.
>
> I respect Morgaine (although I don't always agree with her) for the
> time she has put to keeping people aware of what was going on.
> And if her efforts are the reason that the project stalled then YAY!
> That was one hell of job. I didn't have the time to it myself, but
> I think it's a step forwards. Anything but just one or two people
> dominating the list, producing documents and causing anyone who oppose
> (like me) to go silent, and then God Forbid - turning that into a standard.
>
>> So, i agree with Katherine her proposal (in another tread) and suggest
>> we keep working within the current charter. What we could do is the
>> absolute bare minimum of change to the drafts to keep us floating, and
>
> No... See, that's where you make a fatal mistake of taking a step
> backwards. This is not about pushing SOME "standard" at all costs.
> It's about designing a standard that is clearly technically the best,
> so that everyone agrees with that. Imho, we need to start from scratch.
>
> Oops, no I said 'we'... but count me out. I still see the same people
> around here and it's still going to fail just as bad as last time (or,
> as I expected the first time around... some "standard" is going to
> be produced that sucks; and that is either going to be ignored, or
> adopted by a few large "players" who then all get major head aches
> and problems that they can't fix; and in the end it will be the users
> who suffer most from having a bad protocol of course :/.
>
>> start a campaign for new blood. This is such a cool project, i simply
>> can't imagine we wont be able to attract some new people that can help
>> to make it happen.
>>
>> -- Vaughn
>