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

Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> Mon, 28 March 2011 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DD163A6A21 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aXd3+N9X6hPd for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A8E3A6943 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwg5 with SMTP id 5so2330180qwg.31 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=oXxTclrmIKkjZVZfSlvaYEcf+tY0HgZCbFHrbdSdDmI=; b=prN8w4Fh/NM4h5ls+iYjlEnSlR9lzngtVKat8/eyeTRLjKJ2OJvyOz/KD0TsH5bNiO ZydUZ3+MG8iKpKFnkwDWM7wC/T/4kGS7yLL8+08ai9C8qeipIfZShf0cWKeI1fRDg0rw MEE3YoIwroT6XQXG+kxSXGMybFCrEZW1KUTcM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=SsBoRUbq6UGDDTFfnzZZKMnZKdOcTXlIegQRm7Uwq6F+F0lEIvz5NWHHVWnDQzSliK wDtTMQwekTQm3QbxTyXPHN09J7pxBEIhltuBV/C3Y7fWgBCgXNudOHIEwptupmjnw3gc EhGHZQhxlqjaNpsk9sAm7JHawYeaE/GP+I+Q8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.37.130 with SMTP id x2mr1323570qcd.147.1301326144508; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.211.84 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin=9a35pzm9QkGt6v5PgWAgsqomkYCBG8eSa4Xg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim=tpngqs8gt=sjCeOQgtUATVRXXKe11qUaNJFw@mail.gmail.com> <BLU159-ds1192252375D420BE8C7C9EDCB90@phx.gbl> <956AEC85-F919-4C64-96BA-277B620CAB18@gmail.com> <AANLkTimLHwMb9u5Ok-44-JgHaL_EydeSHyHUQybvNpMp@mail.gmail.com> <20110326135320.GC29908@alinoe.com> <AANLkTin=9a35pzm9QkGt6v5PgWAgsqomkYCBG8eSa4Xg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:29:03 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinp2+skkPP0L1sWtTn1-OU=Q6_YXk_W1+QdL-8Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
To: vwrap@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016368340c0949238049f8c9a04"
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap>
List-Post: <mailto:vwrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:27:30 -0000

Barry, is there IETF precedent for a WG that has undergone this particular
train of events, namely a major disconnect between its originators'
intentions and the WG's expectations of direction?

If so, our situation may be slightly easier to handle, since the originators
have withdrawn from pressing their case and there appears to be almost no
actual dispute remaining in the group.  Procedurally though, I really don't
know where we stand from the IETF's perspective.  We seem to have a common
goal now, but if the IETF demands paperwork, we're not there yet because the
designs and plans have not been worked out.  I'm hoping for flexibility, but
acknowledge that flexibility has a limit.

That said, reading the IETF Mission Statement leaves no doubt that VW
interoperability is right in the middle of the road for the IETF.  Can the
group be left to work out what needs to be worked out?


Morgaine.




=================================

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>wrote:

> 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
>