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

Dzonatas Sol <> Tue, 05 April 2011 21:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADD9D28C147 for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 14:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.515
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YdI3Cfl9Tr6k for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 14:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6846D28C12B for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 14:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iye19 with SMTP id 19so999240iye.31 for <>; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zmYSiRDTqZN962uLoZ3P0n8P2pGL2Xm6zQn4Imd/MyY=; b=ALdtexRZjYCp3PccDI2ZSipnFo08Hmp5WmYJJTLCp6Fz00asUdnbZiokQRyGpS6/3z MXl3IR/yx80TV57sCYG+C1w5jELBOr1ikomxeMqvBD7wB5T2RZmGoK7pWqDkO2ht+Jgq 5HuACgsVn55AXqCn1jwOcZ0eQMhmSUmNl0Tcg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=LdivRQej4PhXsnm3oBd8PMq30o6Hug7AS6z+RZV/LzTvbi8Qo9E5sNT2rdD5IKS9Rn /BpBBEeLkiYEHA+J+Pl9+f0hioHd1tYlkhxHp8ok8jiVp2mzBzkAf11skIpmj3k8ub4t 6Ts7E4HF8biffMaAgW7n+0iHJjjCEoXHjYRlQ=
Received: by with SMTP id xb3mr246369icb.458.1302040122751; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id i3sm4713870iby.40.2011. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:49:31 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <>
User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird (X11/20100329)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <20110401161332.37ca0f9e@hikaru.localdomain> <> <> <> <> <20110405231144.4cec7412@hikaru.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20110405231144.4cec7412@hikaru.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 21:47:01 -0000

IETF seems to already have this nailed down on the political side. The 
working groups help.

Any proposal needs documentation, so that is where any consensus happens 
aside from implementation (actual or attempted).

We can assume succession of RFCs.

Carlo Wood wrote:
> 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).

--- ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant