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

I wouldn't say OpenSim is the future.  This still has to be proven.  Even
SL, even though has a fairly large customer base only fits a narrow set of
use cases and this is why we don't see more advanced virtual world
applications using it.

If fact I think this is one of the main issues with this group.  To justify
its purpose they need to define the use case it is to be used for.  I have
trouble understanding the use case outside of SL.  And since SL has not show
any interest now I find it hard to understand the purpose of this group.

M.

-----Original Message-----
From: vwrap-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:vwrap-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Patnad Babii
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 11:03 AM
To: vwrap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group

What we should focus on, is this I believe, are we going to keep LLSD (is it

good enought). Is it really needed or shall we start from scratch, with the 
aim of using some new viewer / browser.

Opensim (open source virtual platform with alot of grids already) is using 
LLSD, especially because the viewer LL made is using LLSD.

To be honest I keep saying since the beginning of these working groups (the 
various ones, ogpx, vwrap, mmox..) we should put aside the existing stuff, 
work more with Opensim, since they are the key to this new journey that is 
open virtual worlds, its good they have HyperGrid already which does some 
amazing stuff!

What we need is a consensus, something we all agree on and go forward with 
the docs.

-----Message d'origine----- 
From: Barry Leiba
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 10:40 AM
To: Carlo Wood
Cc: vwrap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group

Hi, Carlo, Vaughn, Izzy, Dzonatas, and everyone else.
I'm glad to see some discussion going.  Izzy is right when he says this:
> Of course this all may not matter unless somebody actually addresses
> the underlying issue: That the group needs to start producing documents.

Indeed.  We, the chairs, need to see real progress on the documents...
particularly the introduction document.

This discussion is a start, and, as I say, I'm pleased to see it, but
it has to turn into real document editing very soon.

I want to say one other thing:

> 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 :/.

Carlo, Meadhbh is still around, thought she (note gender) has given up
the editorship of the documents.  Your input is welcome -- encouraged
-- though, of course, if you choose not to participate for whatever
reason, that's your choice.  I think choosing not to participate
because some particular person is also participating is a poor choice,
but it's your choice to make.  I would like to see you reconsider
that, if you're willing to do the work.

What I do *not* want to see, and what we won't tolerate, are personal
attacks on any participant here.  Do not engage in name-calling, do
not question people's integrity, do not malign the companies they work
for, and do not accuse people of malfeasance because they disagree
with you.  If you present your ideas and others agree with what you
say, those ideas will make it forward.  That's how we aim to work,
here, and if this working group can continue and make progress, that's
indeed how we'll work.

So... will we make some progress on the intro document?  Can we get
some real discussion on it, and a draft that shows some level of
consensus within the nest few weeks?

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