IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mmox] I hate to be a kill joy here and, put the horse before the cart

Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> Sat, 21 February 2009 11:10 UTC

Return-Path: <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C04B23A6AA0 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 03:10:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 9SwmbQpfMJ4k for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 03:10:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bw0-f161.google.com (mail-bw0-f161.google.com [209.85.218.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5318A3A69C7 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 03:10:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bwz5 with SMTP id 5so3399844bwz.13 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 03:10:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=yZojmuRxhH2vFd2BKmnNCHUh5FV2pvoE6ckFA8nvLKs=; b=AU60mD0Iii6R0JV6jRdzG1Q2V75Vjkmk5K8jl95P/mY5hu0+zsNnWwSKROsyD12A53 kOZWtZj1/NsoRlq3hWemcV1SL/11JwS+f0hMkMOI+LMJ36qpHTKbGZxPQhD7Y6EkLp7Y EXyGYwPe+LM10j4PpzlEM1vo6E6WM7uGwJK7I=
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=EliSOGjBcBcfX6EhOhjXG0Wow703tNR3HFqXgVsYNLScfVuYjNDIDmNMNKaucSPFFS WFCBglYiMbav8QeBoR/NLVehVy8QJ89QyWkJDJM21RwDBkf3J+/gNjNm5wqR4t9prFQb CcJ4jmHcYeBkWOo5DcZV8szVcmIWvxAxGg3H8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.181.138.13 with SMTP id q13mr661511bkn.42.1235214623934; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 03:10:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <61dbdd7d0902210114gc838cc1qa34b8aae7455d241@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a768bcd90902210018k7a87bd19w38c346188e5ee355@mail.gmail.com> <61dbdd7d0902210114gc838cc1qa34b8aae7455d241@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:10:23 +0000
Message-ID: <e0b04bba0902210310u6e729120x408b06777d3833b9@mail.gmail.com>
From: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
To: Gareth Nelson <gareth@litesim.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001485f85a94e18b0d04636bd0bf"
Cc: "mmox@ietf.org" <mmox@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mmox] I hate to be a kill joy here and, put the horse before the cart
X-BeenThere: mmox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Massively Multi-participant Online Games and Applications <mmox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox>
List-Post: <mailto:mmox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:10:11 -0000

On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Gareth Nelson <gareth@litesim.com> wrote:

So, why don't we get on with voting on a charter?
> As for discussing implementation details now - nothing wrong with
> doing so if it's in the same basic area as the formal working group
> would be
>


That work has already started, Gareth, although the discussion might have
preceded your joining the list. :-)

To help your navigation, I'll unpick the messy email threading for you:

1) John Hurliman first pointed out the inappropriateness of references to
OGP in the charter of a workgroup whose mission it is to examine what is
appropriate in the first place:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg00012.html

2) I agreed, and affirmed that we are definitely not here to rubberstamp
Linden proposals, and hence that we should start immediately on improving
the charter:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg00013.html

3) Infinity responded extremely positively and noted that the initial draft
was highly LL/IBM-specific since they were the two authors of the draft, but
invited John and myself (and everyone else on the list of course) to submit
concrete proposals for improvements:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg00015.html

4) I responded with an offer to help directly:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg00016.html

5) Based off the LL/IBM original (#1), John provided the first improved
draft charter (#2):
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg00032.html

6) Based off John's draft #2, I made improvements for clarity and removed an
ambiguity, to give us draft #3:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg00036.html

7) Infinity and I then exchanged several emails in the list to narrow down
whether the word "proprietary" was substantive, or just a residue from the
initial version.  The clear conclusion was that it was *highly* substantive,
and therefore I further modified my version with a clear statement that we
are in the business of defining open, non-proprietary standards, which
became draft #4:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg00066.html

There have been no specific updates since then.

Needless to say, if you or anyone else requires further changes, then pick
up the baton and run with it!  I look forward to draft #5. :-)

I am sure the text will undergo numerous further iterations before we
finally agree on an effective charter that can be passed at the BoF.  The
MMOX list is currently examining other issues, but it is certain to return
to the charter as the BoF draws nearer.

Morgaine.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email