Re: [vwrap] Call for a vote on interop BETWEEN independent virtual worlds or not

[Joshua Bell <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Morgaine <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Jonathan Freedman <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:
>
> From what I can tell the drafts do support interoperability between the
> same *class* of virtual world. The catch is that the language needs to be
> significantly clearer.
>
>
> That sounds reasonable to me, Jonathan.  I believe that your first sentence
> reflects everyone's understanding of our goals ever since we formed the
> working group.  Only now has this odd "no interop between virtual worlds"
> slant been placed on our goals.
>

The group's goals are formally described in the charter:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/vwrap/charter/

... which, based on previous iterations of this discussion, we carefully
crafted to not try and nail down what a "virtual world" was so as not to
offend those who have an investment in any particular reading of that term.


> Judging by the responses received here, it's clear that everyone else is
> affirming in one way or another their interest in virtual worlds that
> interoperate.  I certainly am.  I hope that we can confirm it as a matter of
> record with the help of the WG Chairs.
>

I'm having deja vu... no, wait, we have had this discussion before. Here's
one of my notes from Oct 2009:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx/current/msg00509.html
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx/current/msg00509.html>
... which is a response to a thread on exactly the same topic.

At the end of the day, we're attempting to describe protocols that allow
operators of virtual world services to interoperate such that users can
control avatars that move through it with the same client code, assuming
appropriate permissions. That's what's in the charter, and there's never
been disagreement about that that I'm aware of.

What we've learned from this discussion in previous iterations:

* If you call that scenario "multiple operators, multiple virtual worlds",
fine. But someone will disagree with your choice of terminology, and be
unwilling to adopt your terminology.

* If you call that scenario "multiple operators, one virtual world", fine.
But someone will disagree with your choice of terminology, and be unwilling
to adopt your terminology.

If you insist on using such terminology, please learn to recognize when you
are engaged in discussion with someone who uses different terminology and
either mentally translate or fixate on the scenario and technology, not the
label.

There is clear consensus on goals (both from pre-charter discussions, the
chartering itself, and even now if you read the scenarios being discussed in
this thread and ignore the labels). While attempting to standardize on
terminology might be a valuable discussion - and is probably within the
charter for this group, as a means to further the group's goals - please
recognize that there is a distinction between changing terminology and
changing scenarios/goals.