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

Carlo Wood <> Tue, 05 April 2011 21:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4FC3A67DB for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 14:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.528
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Udk-VxnGJ2SU for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 14:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A463A67D9 for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 14:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by (InterMail vM. 201-2260-120-106-20100312) with ESMTP id <> for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 23:11:46 +0200
Received: from ([]) by with edge id TxBk1g01Q0FlQed04xBlBy; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 23:11:46 +0200
Received: from carlo by with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1Q7DXM-0004PA-FG for; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 23:11:44 +0200
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 23:11:44 +0200
From: Carlo Wood <>
Message-ID: <20110405231144.4cec7412@hikaru.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <20110401161332.37ca0f9e@hikaru.localdomain> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=tMVj8KYobzzX0EiRnC7vY2isLrCxFvdg4RrHWPZXwJ0= c=1 sm=0 a=SNAFxGGoWQUA:10 a=lF6S9qf5Q1oA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=BjFOTwK7AAAA:8 a=t5_XcuIdZpuDyaOzd4wA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=bW3kdApBr58A:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Statements of Consensus. Flexibity First.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:10:05 -0000

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 13:03:36 -0400
Izzy Alanis <> wrote:
> I'm not against the "design for tomorrow" platform. I'm pro-"design
> for tomorrow", but I believe the proposition, as currently worded,
> does not appropriately communicate those intentions.
> I could agree with the following wording (though I still don't believe
> it communicates your 'design for tomorrow intentions'):
> * Whenever a change X in the protocol is proposed (which might be
> an addition, a change of existing protocol or even deletion: any
> change, making the protocol (VWRAP) go from A --> B), then
> *# Protocol B SHOULD do everything that A could do.
> *# Good use-case justification for B MUST be provided.
> *# Implementation requirements of B MUST be listed.

That completely changes the whole intent of the proposal:
to make progress by reaching consensus on an (abstract) goal.

My goal is to have less discussion about whether or not something
should be supported by making clear that if there is even a single
use case, maybe, that might need it, then why not? Then people wont
have to defend anymore why that use case is essential, or morally ok,
or not endangering the private agenda of someone. Then it's just
clear from the start that "Oh yes, someone might want that, so VWRAP
HAS to support that"... There shouldn't be any discussion about
something like that.

In your bullet points, I don't see that goal back at all anymore.

Worse, I oppose to it.  If A then B is NOT the same as if B then A.
You changed the meaning completely. What you are saying that it
is forbidden to even make a proposal for a change unless the result can
still do exactly what it could be before that. That means we can't make
any real CHANGES anymore. Everything we have done so far is set in
stone and apparently holy (correct, without errors).

Carlo Wood <>