Re: [vwrap] VWRAP, after discussion with the Area Director

What Moargaine said :)

Interesting idea about splitting... will that bring true progress, or only
the illusion?

Kari

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:00 AM, Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>wrote:

> Thank you, Barry and Peter. :-)
>
> It is sad to witness what amounts to the end of an era, but I think that
> you have made the right decision.
>
> It probably became inevitable once it emerged that the intended goal at
> time of chartering was not the one that most participants desired and
> expected.  A WG charter needs to be well aligned with the goals of its
> people, or a rough consensus becomes unlikely.
>
> For my part, I intend to work towards the goals that you both outlined.
> Whether we will be successful remains to be seen, and manpower is against
> us.  Perhaps we will need to split into more than one group to allow
> progress to be made, because it has become very clear that there is a strong
> disparity of goals between those who are content with existing protocols and
> those who wish to design for a better tomorrow.  This just saps everyone's
> energy and wastes the little manpower we have available.
>
> As you are going to cease monitoring the mailing list in a chairing
> capacity soon, I want to thank you both now for performing your IETF duties
> very effectively and fairly for us over the past months and years, putting
> up with our little arguments, smoothing the waters where needed, and keeping
> us focused on the goals of an IETF WG.
>
> It has been a pleasure working with you both, and I hope that you won't shy
> away from the occasional non-Chair visit to the list.  Your advice is always
> appreciated.
>
> Best regards :-)
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
> =======================
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Barry.
>>
>> Speaking as the Area Director responsible for the VWRAP WG, I'd like to
>> make it fully clear that we plan to proceed as follows:
>>
>> 1. Close the working group in its current instantiation
>>
>> 2. Keep the vwrap@ietf.org mailing list open
>>
>> 3. Continue discussions on the list
>>
>> The hope is that folks here can converge on a new direction, leading to
>> formation of a new working group, or at least to publication of
>> individual Internet-Drafts that provide a framwork for future efforts.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 5/10/11 7:12 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> > I'm encouraged by Morgaine's assessment of the progress the group is
>> > making in discussions.  I like that it's taking a broader view,
>> > looking toward interoperation among different virtual worlds.  The
>> > discussion of the technology is going in a good direction.
>> >
>> > Where it's going is to a very different place than what was set out in
>> > the VWRAP charter.  The IESG will need to re-evaluate the work when
>> > the group has things grounded and can propose a new charter, for the
>> > new direction.  They'll need to see who's invested in the new work --
>> > who will do the protocol design, who will take on the editing, and who
>> > will give it the review it needs to be a good standard.  In the
>> > meantime, this mailing list is the right place for the discussion to
>> > continue.
>> >
>> > The IESG will close out the current charter, and will leave the
>> > mailing list open.  Remember that the IETF gets most of its work done
>> > on mailing lists, and not all of them are associated with current
>> > working groups.  There won't be chairs monitoring it... which means
>> > that there won't be chairs bugging you about IETF process stuff, but
>> > also that there won't be chairs nudging you along, so be careful not
>> > to let that stall the work.
>> >
>> > I suggest that the group put its focus on converging on two initial
>> documents:
>> >
>> > 1. A new introduction and overview document, laying out what
>> > problems/situations/scenarios you'll be addressing, how you'll go
>> > about it, and what things will look like in the end.  This should lead
>> > directly to a proposal for a new charter.
>> >
>> > 2. A protocol requirements document, specifying what the protocol(s)
>> > will have to do (and won't have to do).  This will be a strong basis
>> > for the protocol design, which could be done in that new working
>> > group.
>> >
>> > Please keep this going.  I hope we'll see a charter proposal for a new
>> > working group fairly soon.
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>

-- 

http://kjlippert.wordpress.com/
http://community.webshots.com/user/MissGnomer