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

[Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]>]

Meadhbh,
Meadhbh,

As i stated a few mails back, i am certainly willing to help, but I am
not  a proffesional in this field, and my expertise is insufficient to
play an editors role. -and to be honnest, i do not have the needed
time for such a role either. But for sure i will be making
contributions to intro document where possible.

Option 3 is conflating core participation and consensus/enthusiasm. I
am fairly optimistic about the possibility to (eventually) reach
consensus, but we might indeed be critically low on core
participation. Barry wrote "Three or four participants isn't enough"
and he is right. This tread has only a handfull of responses,
dangerously close to that level.

Close, but not there yet, we will see what happens on the wiki. If
*that* fails its time for option 3.

--Vaughn

On 1/15/11, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]> wrote:
> whoops. yes.  meant to say "you're voting for option #2"
>
> but my original point was that there's a fair amount of work to be
> done, and i was asking if you were going to re-write the intro. if we
> can't find anyone willing to do the work, we might have to go with
> option #3.
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
> --
> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>> No, i am voting for option 2. Barry wrote:
>>
>> "2. Come to consensus on significant changes to the direction of the
>> VWRAP specs[...]  Consider rechartering, if the direction has changed
>> enough to require that."
>>
>> All i am saying is that i don't see the need for rechartering *yet*.
>>
>> --Vaughn
>>
>> On 1/15/11, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> you're voting for option 1 then, but are you volunteering to do the work?
>>>
>>> the current intro XML is in SVN at
>>> http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/vwrap/
>>>
>>> you can check them out with the command:
>>>
>>> svn co http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/vwrap/ vwrap_documents
>>>
>>> if there's interest, i'm happy to put on a 30 minute "how to edit,
>>> write and publish an internet draft" presentation in world somewhere.
>>>
>>> -cheers
>>> -meadhbh
>>>
>>> --
>>> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
>>> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I am not convinced rechartering is actually needed. The introduction
>>>> document certainly needs an overhaul, and we to need to reaffirm we
>>>> are all on the same track, but I think that the existing charter might
>>>> still work for us. I suggest we work with it, at least until it
>>>> becomes the obvious obstacle for progress.
>>>>
>>>> -- Vaughn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/15/11, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> Hey Barry,
>>>>>
>>>>> so it seems like there's at least some interest for rechartering.
>>>>> what's the mechanics for that? do we call for a new BoF or just hash
>>>>> out a new charter on the mailing list?
>>>>>
>>>>> -cheers
>>>>> -meadhbh
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
>>>>> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Vaughn Deluca
>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Although i have only been operating in the fringe of this group, i
>>>>>> would like to argue for #2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It clear that some refocussing and consensus building is needed, but
>>>>>> we should at least  give that a try. To me it seems definitely to
>>>>>> early to give up. If we try #2  it will become clear if  #3 can
>>>>>> indedeed be avoided.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see christina's point of starting at the basis, and fixing SSO
>>>>>> first. However, I feel that from the perspective of VWRAP SSO is
>>>>>> actually a well described sub-problem that can be left to others to
>>>>>> solve, while we focus on the specific  of avatars and assets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In  terms of actual commitment, i think the wiki idea is great, and i
>>>>>> will try to free some time to contribute there in the near future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Vaughn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/15/11, Cristina Videira Lopes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm leaning towards #2 and #3 simultaneously :)
>>>>>>> Let me explain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The goal of achieving virtual world interoperability always felt like
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> niche goal to me, but one that, given the nature of these
>>>>>>> applications,
>>>>>>> touched on a couple of more foundational issues: single sign ons and
>>>>>>> Web
>>>>>>> services security -- in short, federations that cross enterprise
>>>>>>> boundaries.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a variety of implementations for SSOs out there, more
>>>>>>> recently
>>>>>>> the one in the Hypergrid, and a variety of ways of securing Web
>>>>>>> services. But no standards that I know of -- apart from the SOAP
>>>>>>> stuff.
>>>>>>> Perhaps this group should band with others who may be interested in
>>>>>>> standardizing these things -- SSO seems like it's ripe for that. In
>>>>>>> other words, let's join with others on common foundational issues,
>>>>>>> rather than separating from them along the lines of application
>>>>>>> domains
>>>>>>> (VWs vs everything else).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In that sense I'd argue for #3, because doing an IETF SSO working
>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>> properly would require substantial change and outreach. There's a
>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>> history in SSOs. The good news is that from what I read in [1], there
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> now some interest in the IETF on this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, some issues are application-domain-specific -- e.g. avatars,
>>>>>>> assets;  in the Web model, these are MIME type issues. They need
>>>>>>> standardization too -- or at least generalized agreement on the data
>>>>>>> that gets passed around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In that sense I'd argue for #2. There are MIME type standards that
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> group can define specifically for virtual worlds. That's one part of
>>>>>>> interoperability that only ppl in the VW field can tackle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Crista / Diva
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] http://isoc.org/wp/ietfjournal/?p=1715
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/14/2011 9:13 AM, Barry Leiba 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> vwrap mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> vwrap mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>