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

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

As a point of information and perhaps a call for patience, the period of low
progress coincided with December, a month in which traditionally nothing
gets done (in the West) for reasons that need no explanation.

In October/November, a number of us embarked on a collective edit of a wiki
page as *input* to the next version of an Intro draft, starting from
scratch.  This was a direct followup to our rather epic list discussions of
September precipitated by Diva, which had finally made explicit what had
been known implicitly from the beginning of OGPX/VWRAP, but which was never
openly expressed until then:  that some central documents produced by the
original OGP designers were completely out of step with this group's
near-unanimous desire to provide a protocol foundation for interop
*between*virtual worlds.

September was a watershed month in that respect, and change was inevitable
after that point.  We're not going back (I believe) to a destructive
worldview that denies a central goal of the group, a goal which, it's worth
stating, is wholly aligned with the IETF Mission Statement in respect of
interoperation on the Internet.

Yes, it does mean that (some) previous drafts have become not only expired
but actually wrong.  Yes, it does mean that our schedule is unlikely to be
met, but then the schedule was a result of commercial interests more than
anything else.  It shouldn't come as a big surprise that earlier
business-driven deadlines became inappropriate after the commercial interest
disappeared.  But IETF WG participants are individuals rather than
corporations, and loss of commercial interest does not necessarily mean that
participants' interest has disappeared as well.

I can only speak for myself, but I am still very keen to work towards a
standards track specification to underpin interop between VWs.  I think this
is important work, because even if it does not take the world by storm, it
provides a very valuable Internet community focus for protocol design
efforts in this area, and most importantly, an *open participatory* focus.
There is no shortage of less participatory groups dealing with VW interop,
each doing whatever their main designer thinks is the right thing, but an
IETF group is "constitutionally" open, and that is healthy.

So what's our future?  Well assuming that the IETF is flexible on deadlines,
I don't see a huge problem.  It's always hard to start the initial version
of something, but people tend to contribute more easily once a framework
exists, ready to be improved.  And documents are like software:  they're
ready when they're ready.  Extra resourcing does not necessarily speed up
the process, and whipping is probably the wrong approach for accelerating
intellectual goals. :P

Perhaps we need to change our focus a little.  We have been working top-down
(service orchestration through caps) and bottom-up (LLSD), but there has
been no meat in the sandwich:  for example, we've left asset services
languishing as little more than a cloud in a mental picture, despite asset
services being the very core of interop between worlds.

I think there is much work to be done, many good reasons for doing it, and
no reason to force the pace.  Indeed, the best standards are those that
reflect *de facto* mechanisms in use in the industry, and the "VW industry"
is very actively working on methods that we can incorporate into our
specifications.  As an example, the VWRAP emphasis on services using Web
infrastructure has become quite popular as a general approach, which tells
me that we were on the right track.

In summary, I see change happening in VWRAP, but no reason for despair.
John's exit from the VW arena to pursue different interests is undoubtedly a
setback for us, as he was leading the exploration of protocols consistent
with the VWRAP model and his enthusiasm knew no bounds.  But Opensim,
realXtend and many other groups continue to work on protocols, and so a
working group that is able to assimilate their ideas will be central for
interoperation between them.

If our options are the three presented, then I support #2, and I see no
reason for doom and gloom. :-)

PS. The wiki page for the new Intro document which I mentioned earlier is
available here ---
http://vwrap-playpen.wikispaces.com/New+VWRAP+intro+draft.  Editing is
of course open to all VWRAP contributors (I believe David is
coordinating access).  This pre-draft has the purpose of overcoming a major
failing in VWRAP so far:  drafts were written, extensive discussions were
held, and the comments were totally ignored by the draft writers and never
made it into subsequent versions.  The interactive wiki approach overcomes
that (human) problem by technical means.  The general goal is to put us on
the right road for an official IETF draft that reflects the group's desired
direction on interop.  Previously we were on the wrong road entirely.


Morgaine.

PS. Happy New Year to all ! :-)



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

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>wrote:

> Good day, all.
> The chairs and area directors have been talking about the status and
> future of the VWRAP working group.  Owing to changes in focus and
> commitment by both companies and individuals, things have been
> languishing, and it's not clear to us that we have what we need to get
> the chartered work done.  The introduction document looked close to
> ready, until some controversy on its content and direction brewed, and
> the result of that discussion was inconclusive.  The normative drafts
> that have seen some implementation (type system, launch message, etc.)
> also appear nearly technically complete, but some issues have been
> identified and not resolved by subsequent discussion, consensus, and
> editing.
>
> At this point, the mailing list has been too quiet for too long, all
> the draft documents have expired, and we need to make a decision about
> what to do.
>
> The chairs and ADs see three possibilities:
>
> 1. Find new document editors, pick up the chartered work with the
> existing document base, and get moving again.  Get the introduction
> document finished by the end of February, and make progress on the
> others.
>
> 2. Come to consensus on significant changes to the direction of the
> VWRAP specs, find new document editors, revamp the introduction
> document, and get that finished, or substantially so, by the end of
> February.  Have some clear consensus, clear direction, and enthusiasm
> to continue.  Consider rechartering, if the direction has changed
> enough to require that.
>
> 3. Accept that we no longer have enough core participation, consensus,
> and enthusiasm to make progress, and close the working group.  Future
> work in the virtual world area could charter a new working group
> later.
>
> Note that options 1 and 2 both require that we demonstrate sufficient
> energy and participation to really get work done and to demonstrate
> consensus.  That means that we need people to commit to
> writing/editing documents, actively discussing the technical issues
> with the goal of reaching consensus on the content of the documents,
> and, importantly, reviewing documents and showing that we have
> consensus.  Three or four participants isn't enough, and conflicting
> ideas that can't be resolved into a consensus-based position won't
> work.
>
> What say you, VWRAP participants?  Can we pick up the work and make
> progress?  Shall we close the working group, and perhaps consider
> something in future?  Do you favour options 1, 2, or 3?  Or do you see
> an alternative option you'd like to bring up?
>
> Barry and Joshua, VWRAP chairs
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>