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

[Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]>]

No, i am voting for option 2. Barry wrote:

"2. Come to consensus on significant changes to the direction of the
VWRAP specs[...]  Consider rechartering, if the direction has changed
enough to require that."

All i am saying is that i don't see the need for rechartering *yet*.

--Vaughn

On 1/15/11, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]> wrote:
> you're voting for option 1 then, but are you volunteering to do the work?
>
> the current intro XML is in SVN at http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/vwrap/
>
> you can check them out with the command:
>
> svn co http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/vwrap/ vwrap_documents
>
> if there's interest, i'm happy to put on a 30 minute "how to edit,
> write and publish an internet draft" presentation in world somewhere.
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
>
> --
> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>> I am not convinced rechartering is actually needed. The introduction
>> document certainly needs an overhaul, and we to need to reaffirm we
>> are all on the same track, but I think that the existing charter might
>> still work for us. I suggest we work with it, at least until it
>> becomes the obvious obstacle for progress.
>>
>> -- Vaughn
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/15/11, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Hey Barry,
>>>
>>> so it seems like there's at least some interest for rechartering.
>>> what's the mechanics for that? do we call for a new BoF or just hash
>>> out a new charter on the mailing list?
>>>
>>> -cheers
>>> -meadhbh
>>>
>>> --
>>> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
>>> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Although i have only been operating in the fringe of this group, i
>>>> would like to argue for #2
>>>>
>>>> It clear that some refocussing and consensus building is needed, but
>>>> we should at least  give that a try. To me it seems definitely to
>>>> early to give up. If we try #2  it will become clear if  #3 can
>>>> indedeed be avoided.
>>>>
>>>> I see christina's point of starting at the basis, and fixing SSO
>>>> first. However, I feel that from the perspective of VWRAP SSO is
>>>> actually a well described sub-problem that can be left to others to
>>>> solve, while we focus on the specific  of avatars and assets.
>>>>
>>>> In  terms of actual commitment, i think the wiki idea is great, and i
>>>> will try to free some time to contribute there in the near future.
>>>>
>>>> --Vaughn
>>>>
>>>> On 1/15/11, Cristina Videira Lopes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> I'm leaning towards #2 and #3 simultaneously :)
>>>>> Let me explain.
>>>>>
>>>>> The goal of achieving virtual world interoperability always felt like a
>>>>> niche goal to me, but one that, given the nature of these applications,
>>>>> touched on a couple of more foundational issues: single sign ons and
>>>>> Web
>>>>> services security -- in short, federations that cross enterprise
>>>>> boundaries.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a variety of implementations for SSOs out there, more recently
>>>>> the one in the Hypergrid, and a variety of ways of securing Web
>>>>> services. But no standards that I know of -- apart from the SOAP stuff.
>>>>> Perhaps this group should band with others who may be interested in
>>>>> standardizing these things -- SSO seems like it's ripe for that. In
>>>>> other words, let's join with others on common foundational issues,
>>>>> rather than separating from them along the lines of application domains
>>>>> (VWs vs everything else).
>>>>>
>>>>> In that sense I'd argue for #3, because doing an IETF SSO working group
>>>>> properly would require substantial change and outreach. There's a long
>>>>> history in SSOs. The good news is that from what I read in [1], there
>>>>> is
>>>>> now some interest in the IETF on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, some issues are application-domain-specific -- e.g. avatars,
>>>>> assets;  in the Web model, these are MIME type issues. They need
>>>>> standardization too -- or at least generalized agreement on the data
>>>>> that gets passed around.
>>>>>
>>>>> In that sense I'd argue for #2. There are MIME type standards that this
>>>>> group can define specifically for virtual worlds. That's one part of
>>>>> interoperability that only ppl in the VW field can tackle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Crista / Diva
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://isoc.org/wp/ietfjournal/?p=1715
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/14/2011 9:13 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>>>> Good day, all.
>>>>>> The chairs and area directors have been talking about the status and
>>>>>> future of the VWRAP working group.  Owing to changes in focus and
>>>>>> commitment by both companies and individuals, things have been
>>>>>> languishing, and it's not clear to us that we have what we need to get
>>>>>> the chartered work done.  The introduction document looked close to
>>>>>> ready, until some controversy on its content and direction brewed, and
>>>>>> the result of that discussion was inconclusive.  The normative drafts
>>>>>> that have seen some implementation (type system, launch message, etc.)
>>>>>> also appear nearly technically complete, but some issues have been
>>>>>> identified and not resolved by subsequent discussion, consensus, and
>>>>>> editing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At this point, the mailing list has been too quiet for too long, all
>>>>>> the draft documents have expired, and we need to make a decision about
>>>>>> what to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The chairs and ADs see three possibilities:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Find new document editors, pick up the chartered work with the
>>>>>> existing document base, and get moving again.  Get the introduction
>>>>>> document finished by the end of February, and make progress on the
>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Come to consensus on significant changes to the direction of the
>>>>>> VWRAP specs, find new document editors, revamp the introduction
>>>>>> document, and get that finished, or substantially so, by the end of
>>>>>> February.  Have some clear consensus, clear direction, and enthusiasm
>>>>>> to continue.  Consider rechartering, if the direction has changed
>>>>>> enough to require that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Accept that we no longer have enough core participation, consensus,
>>>>>> and enthusiasm to make progress, and close the working group.  Future
>>>>>> work in the virtual world area could charter a new working group
>>>>>> later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that options 1 and 2 both require that we demonstrate sufficient
>>>>>> energy and participation to really get work done and to demonstrate
>>>>>> consensus.  That means that we need people to commit to
>>>>>> writing/editing documents, actively discussing the technical issues
>>>>>> with the goal of reaching consensus on the content of the documents,
>>>>>> and, importantly, reviewing documents and showing that we have
>>>>>> consensus.  Three or four participants isn't enough, and conflicting
>>>>>> ideas that can't be resolved into a consensus-based position won't
>>>>>> work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What say you, VWRAP participants?  Can we pick up the work and make
>>>>>> progress?  Shall we close the working group, and perhaps consider
>>>>>> something in future?  Do you favour options 1, 2, or 3?  Or do you see
>>>>>> an alternative option you'd like to bring up?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Barry and Joshua, VWRAP chairs
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> vwrap mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> vwrap mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> vwrap mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>>>
>>>
>>
>