Mark, We met briefly in San Diego, and I suggested BAMTA may be interested in helping you create and manage the Consortium. I just had a meeting with key people at BAMTA, and they are very interested in working with you. They would like to have a meeting with you on January 16th at 1:30 PM at BAMTA if that time is OK with you. Please let me know as soon as possible if you are interested and if the meeting time is OK. (I'll give you more details when I hear from you.) I will be leaving on January 17th to give a keynote talk at the 3rd International Interactive Multimedia in Australia, and I won't return until February 5th. Therefore, I would prefer to have the meeting on January 16th or before. BAMTA is a technology alliance for networked multimedia created jointly by the SMART VALLEY and NASA in 1995. They currently have approx. 60 member companies, schools, etc. (including some from outside of the USA), who are uniting to enhance the effectiveness and use of networked multimedia. BAMTA would like to take a very active roll in supporting common solutions in networked multimedia, and they believe interactive 3D environments are key to effective collaboration and information exchange over the network. They propose to create some BAMTA projects that would support the Consortium's innovation and testing of concepts to be included in future versions of VRML. (Some of these projects would include students creating VRML spaces for international collaboration and education.) Some advantages of working with BAMTA are: It would associate the Consortium with an unbiased group that has already demonstrated a desire to cooperate on common solutions It would provide administrative support It would provide access to world class equipment and space to work. It would provide expanded use and testing of VRML within the broad educational projects that have already been started by BAMTA. It would provide valuable input from students who are less inhibited than many of us and who have very creative ideas. It would probably be best to contact me by phone so we can discuss this in more detail. My phone numbers, email, etc. are given below. Val -- Val Watson Senior Staff Scientist Mail Stop 258-2 NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 (415) 604-6421 office (408) 996-9927 home (415) 604-4377 FAX watson@nas.nasa.gov http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~watson Mark, This is a repeat of the message I sent 1/7/96 in case you didn't get it. I would like a reply as soon as possible so I can confirm the meeting with BAMTA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We met briefly in San Diego, and I suggested BAMTA may be interested in helping you create and manage the Consortium. I just had a meeting with key people at BAMTA, and they are very interested in working with you. They would like to have a meeting with you on January 16th at 1:30 PM at BAMTA if that time is OK with you. Please let me know as soon as possible if you are interested and if the meeting time is OK. (I'll give you more details when I hear from you.) I will be leaving on January 17th to give a keynote talk at the 3rd International Interactive Multimedia in Australia, and I won't return until February 5th. Therefore, I would prefer to have the meeting on January 16th or before. BAMTA is a technology alliance for networked multimedia created jointly by the SMART VALLEY and NASA in 1995. They currently have approx. 60 member companies, schools, etc. (including some from outside of the USA), who are uniting to enhance the effectiveness and use of networked multimedia. BAMTA would like to take a very active roll in supporting common solutions in networked multimedia, and they believe interactive 3D environments are key to effective collaboration and information exchange over the network. They propose to create some BAMTA projects that would support the Consortium's innovation and testing of concepts to be included in future versions of VRML. (Some of these projects would include students creating VRML spaces for international collaboration and education.) Some advantages of working with BAMTA are: It would associate the Consortium with an unbiased group that has already demonstrated a desire to cooperate on common solutions It would provide administrative support It would provide access to world class equipment and space to work. It would provide expanded use and testing of VRML within the broad educational projects that have already been started by BAMTA. It would provide valuable input from students who are less inhibited than many of us and who have very creative ideas. It would probably be best to contact me by phone so we can discuss this in more detail. My phone numbers, email, etc. are given below. Val -- Val Watson Senior Staff Scientist Mail Stop 258-2 NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 (415) 604-6421 office (408) 996-9927 home (415) 604-4377 FAX watson@nas.nasa.gov http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~watson Hi Mark, I discussed with my management the possiblity of joining the VRML Consortium. I can report that IBM is interested. The obvious next step for us is to go over whatever organizational papers you may have ready. Ideally, we'd like to get a copy of -- articles of incorporation -- bylaws -- charter / statement of purpose -- description of membership dues & benefits of joining -- list of members and/or pledges It would particularly help me to get a bulleted list of the benefits of belonging. Email is of course OK; or fax (512)-838-1646 Linas Vepstas Hi Mark, I was afraid that was what you'd say. Get a move on, set it up somehow. My problem is IBM can't pledge anything without knowing who's in charge, who the steering comittee/directors/etc. are, or what the expected benefits are (marketing, stanardization, source code, testing, ... or any combo of preceeding) My personal leanings are to shared-source code development; However, I still have to talk over what we'd expect to get from a consoritum, what we'd find useful. Organizationally, I don't think anyone has an opinion her as to how to set ti up (consoritum, adivsory body, etc.) --linas >Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 11:15:29 -0800 >To: linas@austin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas) >From: Mark Pesce >Subject: Re: VRML Consortium > >Linas - > >Happy New Year! > >We're currently researching several possible ways of organizing the >consortium. As soon as any one of them looks solid enough, I will be >contacting you with full details. > >Thanks! > >Mark > >At 12:22 PM 1/15/96 -0600, you wrote: >> >>Hi Mark, >> >>I discussed with my management the possiblity of joining the VRML >>Consortium. I can report that IBM is interested. >>The obvious next step for us is to go over whatever >>organizational papers you may have ready. Ideally, we'd like to >>get a copy of >> >>-- articles of incorporation >>-- bylaws >>-- charter / statement of purpose >>-- description of membership dues & benefits of joining >>-- list of members and/or pledges >> >>It would particularly help me to get a bulleted list of the >>benefits of belonging. >> >>Email is of course OK; or fax (512)-838-1646 >> >>Linas Vepstas >> >> >> > >----- >mpesce@netcom.com * http://hyperreal.com/~mpesce >mpesce@xs4all.nl * http://xs4all.nl/~mpesce (from Europe) >The aeon is a child at play with colored balls. - Heracleitus > > > Let's just say that there's a lot > going on, but we can not talk about it yet, for fear of upsetting the wrong > people. Hmm. Careful not to stack the deck too much -- don't want to read in the paper how Sun, SGI & Nestacpe put this together from the goodness of thier heart, so that we all can benefit. Part of the idea of a consortium is that everybody's equal, nobodys wrong. > Are we under some deadline pressure that I'm unaware of? No. But it typically takes many months between the time we say "yes we'll join" and the time you get a check. Bureacracy. > Mark --linas Mark, When you get to the building at 2540 Mission Blvd for our 1:30 meeting today, please use the phone at the door to call Gray at 7883 for entry into the building. (An alternate number is Eran Gross at 7836) We'll see you at 1:30 Val -- Val Watson Senior Staff Scientist Mail Stop 258-2 NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 (415) 604-6421 office (408) 996-9927 home (415) 604-4377 FAX watson@nas.nasa.gov http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~watson Mark, Thanks for the email. I'll be gone to Australia until Feb 5th and off again to Monaco on Feb 19th. I suggest you go ahead and have a meeting with Gray and Eli and not wait until I return. I'll ask Gray to contact you directly. Val -- Val Watson Senior Staff Scientist Mail Stop 258-2 NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 (415) 604-6421 office (408) 996-9927 home (415) 604-4377 FAX watson@nas.nasa.gov http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~watson Mark, Mitra, If you would be so kind, at the W3C Conference 6-11 May 96 in Paris that Mark mentioned at VRML Symp, did I understand a whole track is dedicated to VRML? Can you tell when yet? I have let MPEG-4 know of the VRML Consortium declaration, and invited liaison. Do you expect some kind of VRML Consortium meeting at W3C? If so, any schedule yet? Would subgroups form up there? Thanks Pete Hi, Please put us on the list of companies interested in becoming part of the VRML Consortium. I think an organization like the one you propose is essential to the continued success of VRML. I am very concerned that we have lost our way after the initial successes. I think the consortium should be in place and operating as soon as possible because now is a critical time for VRML. Has the concept of the organization been developed past what you presented at SIGGRAPH and VRML 95? I would like to know more. Let me know how we can participate and contribute. Tim Rohaly ORC Incorporated (Ocnus' Rope Company) Mark, Well the bar exam is finally all done and over, and I have set out to push the hole back into forgotten memory. How are things with you at the VRML frontlines. Its been a little hard to keep up with events while the bar was on, but i'm attempting to catch up again. By the way I still leave open my offer of free legal help if you need it on the VAG, and would also like to extend to you an invitation to you. After the bar I decided to work for the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information at the Columbia Univeristy Graduate School of Business. We through a lot of confrences for industry, governmental, and academia on tele-communications issues. Since I joined I will be steering them into the cyber area. If you are interested in appearing at some up coming confrences let me know and I'll make sure you have a place. Chk out our URL if you want more info: http://www.ctr.columbia.edu/citi/index.html. Best regards. steve -- ************************************Stephen Messer Graduated Law Student, Philosopher, Poet (An all around kind of guy) Assistant Director, Columbia Institute for Tele-Information Question: Does anyone need a lawyer who doesn't want to practice law???? e-mail at messer@pipeline.com Work Phone at (212) 854-4549 Home Phone at (500) 677-7838 Fax at (914) 941-0253 Snail Mail at: 125 East 87th Street Apt. 9F New York, NY 10128 Quote of the Day: "The public sucks! Fuck hope" George Carlin ****************************************************** Mark, I'm not sure why it did not work, but here it is again http://www.ctr.columbia.edu/citi/index.html let me know if it doesn't work, we checked it on this end and it seems to be working correctly. Best regards. Stephen -- ************************************Stephen Messer Graduated Law Student, Philosopher, Poet (An all around kind of guy) Assistant Director, Columbia Institute for Tele-Information Question: Does anyone need a lawyer who doesn't want to practice law???? e-mail at messer@pipeline.com Work Phone at (212) 854-4549 Home Phone at (500) 677-7838 Fax at (914) 941-0253 Snail Mail at: 125 East 87th Street Apt. 9F New York, NY 10128 Quote of the Day: "The public sucks! Fuck hope" George Carlin ****************************************************** Mark, It was good to meet you the other day at the Superscape party. In case you don't remember me, I left SGI about three months ago to start a new venture capital fund focused on investing in Internet related start-ups. We successfully raised $50 million and have already invested in three companies so far. Anyway, to the matter at hand... I wanted to talk to you about your idea to pull together a VRML industry consortium. I like this idea. I'd like to make this happen as quickly as possible. But before I go on, I should say that one of the companies I have invested in is Axial Systems which is developing VRML authoring tools for PC's and Mac's. (I'm one of three VC's and I serve on the board). Yes, I know Axial sounds like dozens of other companies in this space -- but for now, I don't want to get into why I think these guys will win in a big way in this market. I just wanted to mention this to explain why I'm interested in this topic. Frankly, I really don't care which standard wins, as long as SOMETHING is adopted at a broad level. For now, I think we agree that the Moving Worlds spec has the best shot at becoming this standard within a very short time frame. However, I'm a bit concerned that Moving Worlds is only getting lip service from a lot of people. Other than SGI, I'm not really sure how committed the various tools companies are to Moving Worlds. And with Gavin and Rikk leaving SGI, I'm not even so sure about SGI these days. In my opinion, in order to get the key companies in the industry behind the Moving Worlds spec, someone (or some group) is going to have to put in a lot of time and effort into making this consortium happen. I'd like to help you be this person -- or find someone who will take on this task. I'm not sure how much time I can devote to this effort myself, but I'm sure I can make some expertise and resources available to you to help you drive this process. I'm out of town until next Wednesday and I will not have access to email, but I will be checking for voicemail at (415)732-6136. When you get a chance, please let me know how you'd like to proceed. Maybe we can get together for lunch or dinner in the latter half of next week. Look forward to hearing from you. -- Ho Nam Altos Ventures 2420 Sand Hill Road Suite 203 (415) 971-1106 Menlo Park, CA 94025 (415) 233-9821 Fax Hi Mark At the BOF you mentioned that the formation of a vrml consortium was again being discussed. IDS was very disappointed in the failure of the consortium to materialize when it was being discussed back at SIGGRAPH. It is our desire to be part of the consortium and wish to help in any way to move things along. If you could send me any information or contacts on where the consortium is headed would be a great help. Richard Cowart President Integrated Data Systems Phone: 912-236-4374 email: rcowart@ids-net.com Thanks for coming to the BOF in Paris! If you'd like somone from the business side of the fence who's interested in making a contribution to the further development of VRML in the soon-to-be consortium, please consider me. I'm interested. Drop m a line if you need more info on me/company/etc...or if you need help with anything I can do. Ciao. ----- jmw@serve.net--Jay M. Williams--Serve.Net Online Services Consulting and Development voice:800-660-7555 http://www.serve.net Now that you're back in SF, feel free to stop by sometime over the next week or so - I have no big travel plans so whenever's convenient... but give me a call first just to make sure. Also, I'm interested in having a deeper discussion about the formation of a VRML consortium... not only in hearing where you are with discussions with potential partners, but also about the possibility of Organic helping you set it up as an autonomous entity. I was talking with our financial guy JD about VRML and the current political scenery, and he said he knew of several ways in which seed monies could be obtained for such a consortium, without having to shackle onto a research or standards group like MIT or IEEE or ACM or whatever. Anyways, if you have an hour or two to block out, let me know.... Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- brian@organic.com | We're hiring! http://www.organic.com/Home/Info/Jobs/ Howdy. Rikk introduced you to me and Dr. Val Watson (NASA) at the San Jose BOF. We talked about mirroring VRML resources and BAMTA hosting VRML'96 as a neutral party. I have support from our Board of Directors and membership to offer: o Hosting or mirroring of VRML resources currently bogged by the traffic of the mailing list on your Indy o Host VRML'96 (we discussed late October at the BOF but you are going to Europe?) this Fall in Silicon Valley o Investigate the admin requirements involved in moving the mailing list to BAMTA this summer (you said you wanted out of the business...) if still in use. We have a Tandem-branded Challenge 3 processor server on a T3, Indy & Sparc etc. on 10Mb fiber to MaeWest/FixWest. We have the horsepower to handle current and future traffic volumes for the resources and mailing list. Resource allocations are going on as we speak here. I need to quickly get a plan together with you on storage requirements, and the admin support you think it all needs so I can allocate MIS resources. Hope you are around and this finds you sane! Give me a call or drop me an email and we can discuss logistics and other ways we might help foster VRML. Regards, Grayson (Gray) Schlichting Director, Technology Strategy BAMTA +1 408 562 7883 BAMTA +1 408 477 1324 Home Office gray@bamta.org Mark, We are eager to move forward to help get the VRML Consortium off the ground. Please get back to me via voicemail 415/933-5290 as I will be out of email contact for a week starting tomorrow. I hope your talk in France went well! BTW, I finally had a chance to take a look at your WebEarth. I think that it is the best VRML application I have seen yet! Thanks! -- David Frerichs Silicon Graphics Product Manager - VRML http://vrml.sgi.com frerichs@sgi.com http://www.sgi.com/Products/WebFORCE 415/933-5290 http://reality.sgi.com/frerichs_esd "Coffee Boss" - Ichiban Desu! Hope you got the message of not meeting today (Tues) in time. Sorry to mix media modes, but by the time I got your voicemail, no body or bot answered your number, so I sent email. Looking forward to a few minutes together in the near furture, Gray - BAMTA Mark, Rats. I'm in LA and will not be back into San Jose until 7pm Tuesday. I can arrange a tour if you would like, but there would not be anybody else in town Tuesday to have a meaningful meeting for you. I'm up SF way Wednesday, and have a hole Thursday late morning... I get into the City at least once per week typically if you would like to try something up your way. Regards, GRAY 408-562-7883 2-way pager: 1783519@skytel.com At 01:41 PM 6/17/96 -0700, you wrote: >Grayson - > >Is there any chance that I might be able to drop by in the early afternoon >(say 12:30 PM) on Tuesday? I'll be in the area and would like to talk. > >You can reply to this mail or call me at 415.621.1981 > >Mark >From lsr@nist.gov Thu Jun 20 19:16:20 1996 Received: from perseus.ultra.net by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA08933; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 15:21:00 -0400 Received: from speckle.ncsl.nist.gov (speckle.ncsl.nist.gov [129.6.59.2]) by perseus.ultra.net (8.7.4/dae0.6) with SMTP id PAA00731 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 15:20:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pms (pms.ncsl.nist.gov) by speckle.ncsl.nist.gov (4.1/SMI-3.2-del/cas.6) id AA27269; Thu, 20 Jun 96 15:15:28 EDT Message-Id: <9606201915.AA27269@speckle.ncsl.nist.gov> X-Sender: lsr@speckle.ncsl.nist.gov X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 15:16:20 -0400 To: mitra@earth.path.net, daeron@geom.umn.edu, webmaster@chaco.com, erich@eye.com, cmarrin@sgi.com, rikk@best.com, gavin@acm.org, chris@dimensionx.com, nelson18@llnl.gov, frerichs@sgi.com, broehl@ece.uwaterloo.ca, cbullard@HiWAAY.net, jtc@hq.adied.oz.au, 75162.514@CompuServe.Com, mmccue@netscape.com, rodger@csl.sony.co.jp, theme@netcom.com, jch@jch.com, sulam@construct.net, brutzman@cs.nps.navy.mil, mary.brady@nist.gov, gary.fisher@nist.gov, susan.sherrick@nist.gov, mark.skall@nist.gov, lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov, pbono@crcg.edu, carson@siggraph.org, puk@megateck.com, 71302.417@CompuServe.Com, lofton@ncar.ucar.edu From: Lynne Rosenthal Subject: VRML 2.0 conformance testing Status: R Dear VRMLers: Summary: We at NIST have started a project to develop test suites and/or tools to test conformance to VRML 2.0. Our objective is to complement work you may already be doing, perhaps working collaboratively. Any products produced would be made available on the WEB (free). The goal is to produce test suites and tools that would help developers and users ensure that products are built according to the VRML 2.0 specification. Interested? Read on.... My name is Lynne Rosenthal and I work at NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology: http://www.nist.gov/itl/div879/ctg/). We are interested in doing VRML conformance testing and are aware that there is work that has been developed for VRML 1.0. We would like to collaborate with interested parties in continuing this work for VRML 2.0. and producing a complete test suite for the specification. We would like to develop a VRML test suite to test the following for conformance to VRML 2.0: 1. VRML Web browsers (Interpreters); 2. VRML Authoring Toolkits (generators); 3. VRML files for conformance to the syntax of VRML 2.0. NIST wants to put this information out on the Web to assist users, browser developers and authoring tool developers in their work. NIST is interested in working with interested parties, and would like to collect and organize existing test files that have been developed. We would also like to go through the VRML 2.0 spec in detail to develop thorough and detailed tests that cover the standard in more depth in an organized fasion. You have been identified as a developer of testing of some sort and we are interested in working with you. We have reserved a meeting room at SIGGRAPH to get people together who are interested in testing and have done some work in this area thus far. We would very much like you to attend. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 3 from 6-8 p.m. in the Marriott in the Mardi Gras Ballroom in Salon C. Please respond if you will be able to attend the meeting. If you are unable to attend, please let me know if you are interested in being involved in the conformance testing of VRML. Thank you in advance for your time and effort. Regards - Lynne Lynne Rosenthal NIST Room 562, Building 820 Gaithersburg, MD 20899 (301)975-3353, fax (301)948-6312 lsr@nist.gov YON - Jan C. Hardenbergh - jch@world.std.com - All you need is love Thanks for the reply. When Dr. Val Watson (NASA) and I met with Rikk at SGI, we started the conversation around how BAMTA might help the VAG & community with Consortium efforts as a neutral but technical entity. That conversation moved towards Rikk's suggestion of BAMTA hosting VRML'96 so we didn't talk "consortium" too much. We are prepared to help 'incubate' a VRML consortium to help get things started. I have Board approval to offer the VAG/Consortium resources which can include full service office space in the BAMTA Collaboratory, telephone, voicemail, server resources, bandwidth, and co-location of server(s) on our fiber networks into Fix/MaeWest. With the standards process under way, BAMTA can help promote VRML in the areas of "Marketing" and "Training" through our members, training facility, online resources, and real-world application projects here which integrate VR. Your thoughts? Feel free to give me a call sometime, and I would be happy to come see you, or show you our facilities when you are in the Santa Clara area (Great America Pkwy next to Marriott). Best Regards, Grayson +1 408 562 7883 BAMTA +1 408 477 1324 Home Office At 10:13 AM 5/21/96 -0700, you wrote: >Grayson - > >Thank you very much for your kind offers. At this time I am unsure of the >precise development of VRML events through the end of this year and the >beginning of the next. > >I will be meeting with the VAG in about 30 days to discuss all of the issues >that you have outlined. They are important to us and will most likely be >handled by the VRML Consortium, which will be formed within the next 60 days. > >Thanks for your offer. > >Mark > >At 04:56 PM 5/16/96 -0700, you wrote: >>Howdy. Rikk introduced you to me and Dr. Val Watson (NASA) at the San Jose BOF. >> >>We talked about mirroring VRML resources and BAMTA hosting VRML'96 as a >>neutral party. >> >>I have support from our Board of Directors and membership to offer: >> >>o Hosting or mirroring of VRML resources currently bogged by the traffic of >>the mailing list on your Indy >> >>o Host VRML'96 (we discussed late October at the BOF but you are going to >>Europe?) this Fall in Silicon Valley >> >>o Investigate the admin requirements involved in moving the mailing list to >>BAMTA this summer (you said you wanted out of the business...) if still in use. >> >>We have a Tandem-branded Challenge 3 processor server on a T3, Indy & Sparc >>etc. on 10Mb fiber to MaeWest/FixWest. We have the horsepower to handle >>current and future traffic volumes for the resources and mailing list. >> >>Resource allocations are going on as we speak here. I need to quickly get a >>plan together with you on storage requirements, and the admin support you >>think it all needs so I can allocate MIS resources. >> >>Hope you are around and this finds you sane! Give me a call or drop me an >>email and we can discuss logistics and other ways we might help foster VRML. >> >>Regards, >>Grayson (Gray) Schlichting >>Director, Technology Strategy >>BAMTA >>+1 408 562 7883 BAMTA >>+1 408 477 1324 Home Office >>gray@bamta.org >> >> >> >> > >----- >mpesce@netcom.com * http://www.hyperreal.com/~mpesce >mpesce@xs4all.nl * http://xs4all.nl/~mpesce (from Europe) >Interface infinitely mutable inevitably seduces then dominates. > > > Mark, How are things? I hope all is well. What is the status of the VRML association. We at IDS are ready to join and will invest to be a founding member if there is sufficient interest in the community. We want to be involved as much in possible in the VRML community. Is VRML going to stay with the VAG or will we become more formal? Please let me know. Thanks, Mike Hilgenberg Integrated Data Systems, Inc. At 07:28 PM 7/1/96 -0700, you wrote: > >We need a mailing list for this group. > >Dan Greening, Ph.D. Chaco Communications, Inc. 10164 Parkwood Dr. Suite 8 >greening@chaco.com 408-865-0657 fax 865-0571 Cupertino, CA 95014 I could set one up in a flash... Mark? Grayson Schlichting BAMTA By the time I get to a phone, it's too late to reach you. Sorry. This is a short week, and I have to travel to my brother's wedding Friday. Do you want to try to get together Tues/Wed this week, or at least schedule a phone call? I can come to the City if we want to try this week. I'm open Week of July 8, except Wednesday when we have our monthly member meeting. I'm interested in your progress - I'm watching from the sidelines ready to offer assistance, where appropriate. You can call me evenings and days at 408-477-1769 before leaving a message at BAMTA at 408-562-7883. Regards, GRAY At 04:49 PM 6/24/96 -0700, you wrote: >Grayson - > >I'm out until the 30th. Could we please get together in the first week of July? > >Mark > > Understood - none were made and none will be until I hear from you. - Mitra At 11:41 PM 7/3/96 -0700, Rikk Carey wrote: >I will check with the ISO guys on this. Please do not make any >committments to IETF. > >rc > > >At 01:19 PM 6/29/96 -0700, Mitra wrote: >>Hi Rikk >> >>I spoke to The Powers That Be at IETF, basically, we *can* get it published >>as an Informational RFC, this also is a "rubber-stamping" process, based on >>the VRML community having done its own process on it. >> >>Since we want a rubber-stamp, then we should go through the process with the >>final draft. Which means we don't need to do anything until SigGraph, and >>then produce the required documents. I'd be happy to do the sheperding of >>the document through the process, which in theory takes two or three weeks. >>I've done some of the ground-work already (no commitments, just a "what >>if"). It would be clear that no changes could be made to the document by IETF. >> >>I don't see this as competitive with ISO, just quicker. We should do both, >>since neither organisation gets to revise the standard this should be fine. >>Doing both will make it easier both for those doing internet things, and >>those poor souls who have to deal with the government (can you say GOSIP). >>On the latter ....once it goes through ISO, someone who cares should try and >>get it added to GOSIP. >> >>- Mitra >>----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Mitra, Chief Network Technology Officer, Paragraph Int'l >>Home: +1(415)826-2499 Office: +1(408)364-7700 >>mitra@earth.path.net http://earth.path.net/mitra >> >>**** Life is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved ****** >> >> >-- >Rikk Carey VRML Servant >rikk@best.com 415-969-5910 >VRML 2.0 Spec ----> http://vrml.sgi.com/moving-worlds > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mitra, Chief Network Technology Officer, Paragraph Int'l in Moscow: office +7-095-332-4530 or 129-1500, home 420-2256 fax 129-0911 mitra@earth.path.net http://earth.path.net/mitra **** Life is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved ****** Can you re-send your original VRML Consortium message? I lost it. When can you get together? Gavin and I are both eager to talk. rc -- Rikk Carey VRML Servant rikk@best.com 415-969-5910 VRML 2.0 Spec ----> http://vrml.sgi.com/moving-worlds On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, James Waldrop wrote: > "Dan R. Greening" wrote: > >At 06:55 PM 6/27/96 -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote: > >>(1) a straw poll of who really thinks they really could join; > >> re-run the poll, once a month. If 100 people say yes, then worry > >> about widening the circle. if only 10 say yes, then don't worry. > >> Do it. > > > >Chaco would join at $5000. > > > >We need a mailing list for this group. > > I'm sure Brian or I could set it up on vag.vrml.org. That makes > the most sense, I think. If not, we have the resources here to > do it quickly as well. I'll do it tonight. Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- brian@organic.com www.apache.org hyperreal.com http://www.organic.com/JOBS At 05:56 PM 6/28/96 -0700, Rikk Carey wrote: >At 05:53 PM 6/26/96 -0400, Mitra wrote: > >> ... for example, much as I value SGI's contribution, I'd >>rather see spec editing be in the hands of neutral tech writers rather than >>in the hands of one company. > >Both Gavin and myself are neutral tech writers. The spec is not in the >hands of one company (rather, it's in the hands of a few lunatics). >Of course, we have our own personal biases (as anyone will), but are >honestly trying to be as neutral as possible. At this point, >most of our bias is about getting 2.0 locked down and done. >-- oops. Isn't that why were here? uh we've kindof gone down a scary road here, c'mon now what was that stuff that Mark was talking about? >2) Forbidden that weapons be drawn in their presence; Oh yeah, those crazy druids again.... Clay /------------------------------------/ Clay Graham Manager Virtual Reality Engineering BigBook Inc. 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 San Francisco CA, 94107 (415)284-9886x354 /-----------------------------------/ At 05:56 PM 6/28/96 -0700, Rikk Carey wrote: >At 05:53 PM 6/26/96 -0400, Mitra wrote: > >> ... for example, much as I value SGI's contribution, I'd >>rather see spec editing be in the hands of neutral tech writers rather than >>in the hands of one company. > >Both Gavin and myself are neutral tech writers. The spec is not in the >hands of one company (rather, it's in the hands of a few lunatics). >Of course, we have our own personal biases (as anyone will), but are >honestly trying to be as neutral as possible. At this point, >most of our bias is about getting 2.0 locked down and done. >-- oops. Isn't that why were here? uh we've kindof gone down a scary road here, c'mon now what was that stuff that Mark was talking about? >2) Forbidden that weapons be drawn in their presence; Oh yeah, those crazy druids again.... Clay /------------------------------------/ Clay Graham Manager Virtual Reality Engineering BigBook Inc. 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 San Francisco CA, 94107 (415)284-9886x354 /-----------------------------------/ At 05:49 PM 6/28/96 +0900, Mark Pesce wrote: >At 03:48 PM 6/27/96 -0400, you wrote: >>At 03:02 PM 6/27/96 +0900, Mark Pesce wrote: >> >>>I do believe that free source code (even if it's written by college interns) >>>is a necessary requirement for accepting a proposal. I covered that in the >>>introductory message; it maintains an effective developmental ecology. >> >>I don';t have a problem with free source code being available, but requiring >>it for any proposal - for example for a new node, or protocol or whatever - >>removes the incentive for companies to put their proposals into the public >>domain, the incentive that they are ahead of the competiton. > >hmm...but if this is a standard it can't be willy-nilly changed, yes? >That's why I suggested that compliance be lenient; if people want to go >above and beyond to increase the marketability of their products, more power >to them. But if it's core functionality, shouldn't that be publicly available? Mark Those two things are not connected - yes compliance can be lenient, yes - it should be a requirement to put the spec in the public domain, no patents etc - no it should not be required to put the source in the public domain, but there is nothing to stop someone ELSE implementing it and putting it in the public domain. - Mitra ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mitra, Chief Network Technology Officer, Paragraph Int'l Home: +1(415)826-2499 Office: +1(408)364-7700 mitra@earth.path.net http://earth.path.net/mitra **** Life is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved ****** At 05:53 PM 6/26/96 -0400, Mitra wrote: > ... for example, much as I value SGI's contribution, I'd >rather see spec editing be in the hands of neutral tech writers rather than >in the hands of one company. Both Gavin and myself are neutral tech writers. The spec is not in the hands of one company (rather, it's in the hands of a few lunatics). Of course, we have our own personal biases (as anyone will), but are honestly trying to be as neutral as possible. At this point, most of our bias is about getting 2.0 locked down and done. -- Rikk Carey VRML Servant rikk@best.com 415-969-5910 VRML 2.0 Spec ----> http://vrml.sgi.com/moving-worlds At 05:55 PM 6/27/96 -0700, Dan R. Greening wrote: >Mark's comments about source code are interesting. I don't know of an >organization prepared to create/contribute a source base, and so we must >provide an incentive or drop the notion. > agreed. >On the other hand, the commercial sphere can coopt and distort the standard >to favor large companies with vested interests. > >I suggest that the VRML governing body be populated this way: big >organization pays $50,000, you have one vote. Little organizations and >academic institutions pay $5000, you and your peers may elect >representatives equal in number to the quantity of big companies. Executive >Director breaks ties. This presumes that there are more little companies >involved than big. If there are fewer, each little company/academic >institution has one vote. I don't know if this is perfect but at least its representitive. > >The advantage of this strategy is that smaller company representatives tend >to be there because they have to be, so they know what's going on and >influence toward end-user needs. On the other hand, they have little market >muscle. Bigger company representatives tend to be more distant from the >technology, but when they decide to support something it can have major >market impact. The two together make an uneasy but fertile marriage. > tensions sometimes breed intamacy Clay /------------------------------------/ Clay Graham Manager Virtual Reality Engineering BigBook Inc. 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 San Francisco CA, 94107 (415)284-9886x354 /-----------------------------------/ At 05:55 PM 6/27/96 -0700, Dan R. Greening wrote: >Mark's comments about source code are interesting. I don't know of an >organization prepared to create/contribute a source base, and so we must >provide an incentive or drop the notion. > agreed. >On the other hand, the commercial sphere can coopt and distort the standard >to favor large companies with vested interests. > >I suggest that the VRML governing body be populated this way: big >organization pays $50,000, you have one vote. Little organizations and >academic institutions pay $5000, you and your peers may elect >representatives equal in number to the quantity of big companies. Executive >Director breaks ties. This presumes that there are more little companies >involved than big. If there are fewer, each little company/academic >institution has one vote. I don't know if this is perfect but at least its representitive. > >The advantage of this strategy is that smaller company representatives tend >to be there because they have to be, so they know what's going on and >influence toward end-user needs. On the other hand, they have little market >muscle. Bigger company representatives tend to be more distant from the >technology, but when they decide to support something it can have major >market impact. The two together make an uneasy but fertile marriage. > tensions sometimes breed intamacy Clay /------------------------------------/ Clay Graham Manager Virtual Reality Engineering BigBook Inc. 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 San Francisco CA, 94107 (415)284-9886x354 /-----------------------------------/ At 11:04 PM 6/27/96 -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > >Those are my random thoughts. I think it would be a *good*thing* if we >soon met in person to try and work some of these things out. Since it >looks like a majority of us are in the SF bay area, this seems like a >logical place, and I can offer up a large conference room at Organic for >our purposes.... > >Anyways, those are my semi-random thoughts. > > Brian agreed, when? Clay /------------------------------------/ Clay Graham Manager Virtual Reality Engineering BigBook Inc. 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 San Francisco CA, 94107 (415)284-9886x354 /-----------------------------------/ At 11:04 PM 6/27/96 -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > >Those are my random thoughts. I think it would be a *good*thing* if we >soon met in person to try and work some of these things out. Since it >looks like a majority of us are in the SF bay area, this seems like a >logical place, and I can offer up a large conference room at Organic for >our purposes.... > >Anyways, those are my semi-random thoughts. > > Brian agreed, when? Clay /------------------------------------/ Clay Graham Manager Virtual Reality Engineering BigBook Inc. 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 San Francisco CA, 94107 (415)284-9886x354 /-----------------------------------/ Since it's a large crowd I'll try and keep it succint (I also want to respond to Don's later message about HTML): On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Mark Pesce wrote: > 1) Standards and Specifications > 2) Conformance and Compliance > 3) Research and Development > 4) Marketing and Education I totally agree with this set of goals for the consortium - nothing more, nothing less. [...lots of really good stuff...] > In practical terms, decentralization means that the "functions" of the > Consortium, as outlined at the beginning of this document, would be handled > in different ways, and by different - and sometimes competing - groups. > Let's now examine some specifics: > > Specifications and Standards > > Perhaps the finest example of a decentralized specification authority is the > Internet Engineering Task Force, or IETF. While it has come under fire of > late as increasingly ineffective, the model is still quite solid. We might > seek to formalize certain parliamentary practices (the IETF has very few of > these) in order to bring a certain stability to actions-of-the-group, but > beyond this, I believe that the IETF model most closely conforms to the > www-vrml/VAG model which has been successfully established. > > Therefore, I would suggest that the one of the Consortium's primary > responsibilities is to facilitate and arrange such meetings as will be > regularly required - inclusive of such cyberspace meeting places of www-vrml > and vrml.org. The execution of this task need not be resident in the body > of the Consortium (presuming that we want to avoid the formation of a body), > and could be farmed out to the W3C (for an appropriate fee, of course) or > even to the IETF itself, if either seemed interested. Meeting spaces... I presume you mean both virtual (mailing lists and web site) and in-person. I would propose that in the first case, the Consortium itself handle the back-end issues. This is relatively inexpensive, and to me it seems quite important that this activity stay in neutral hands. Neither the W3C or IETF is particularly known for managing such resources. For in-person meetings, I propose that the major VR and internet show/conference groups (internet world, IETF, siggraph, etc) be approached and asked to rotate hosting a quarterly set of VRML Consortium meetings as a part of their conference activity. These meetings, no matter where they are, must be held once a quarter, and there must be the ability for people to attend the VRMLConsortium meetings without having to pay the full amount for the hosting conference (cap at say, $10). I would think most conference companies would find this a reasonable and attractive offer. I do not necessarily envision a need for more than a couple different groups to meet each quarter (i.e., networking, rendering, and animation language being the key categories). It's likely that there will be regular VRML-specific conferences as well which the consortium could piggy-back on. But organizing your own conference or consortium meetingplace is an expensive thing to do. I'd like to start, with this message, scoping out the resources needed for such a consortium to start, given these missions. So for this mission, I would anticipate one full time person would need to be funded by the Consortium for the purposes of facilitating the consortium meetings. Though in reality, this is probably fulfilled by two half-time people, plus a few extra admins around each conference. The "virtual" meetingplace requirements would probably require one full-time techie. > Conformance and Compliance > > As important as specifications are to VRML, it is equally important to > ensure that products and services are conformant with it. In order to > create a developmental ecology - where implementations can compete on the > basis of quality and features - I recommend that we adopt a lenient > definition of compliance: implementations are allowed to exceed the > specification as long as they are compliant with it. As Linus noted, 100% compliance might be difficult, particularly since the specifications (if they're like all other specifications I've ever seen) have both a minimum set of requirements and a recommended set of requirements. So, I propose two levels - "minimal" and "recommended", to specify compliance. Along with this I would draft Kevin Hughes (for example) to design an icon for each, and then make sure the consortium has control over the use of those icons on products and in advertising. Strong branding! I would envision, for this mission, two full-time people - one to handle the relationships with vendors and publish conformance test results, and another to write/maintain/coordinate with NIST or X/Open the conformance testing software. > Research and Development > > Free source code... This is definitely one of the more important missions such a consortium could take, and also definitely one of the more politically difficult. A look at successful public domain source code software projects, such as Linux or Apache, shows that they did not become a success until there was a sufficient momentum in the project that folks knew they could contribute back to the project and that the project would be there next week, and the week after, etc... it's important that the project have an active development team, who respond to questions and patch submissions and such, but it's also critically important that the program specified by the source code be a high performance piece of software. I think this last reason is why there's very little public support for the NCSA Mosaic web client or CERN library - both applications were considered such dogs that people felt like it wasn't worth their time to hack on it (both have incredibly obfuscated code, but that's another issue :) So, I don't know if the requirement that the consortium create the building blocks for a grad student to build the next "insanely great" app is realistic, without a full time committment of half a dozen or so of the world's brightest programmers. About the best that the consortium could do is a parser for VRML 2.0 code. Which shouldn't be much more than a yacc grammer, yes? Perhaps later down the road there will be a clear opportunity for a situation where free code can assist development. It should be noted that a typical VRML browser will actually incorporate technology from a wide variety of sources, each of those with their own development groups: transfer protocols like HTTP (W3C), Java support ("guava"), etc. Perhaps a VRMLScript library if it's something that ends up being totally unique. But I guess I can sum up by saying source code development might be too big a task to take on at the beginning. Assign someone to manage QvLib development, with the focus being on public-contributed patches and work. I would estimate this to be a 1/2 time position for 1 person. > Marketing and Education > > Finally, we come to the most visible face of the Consortium. Marketing > serves to get the word out about the availability and uses of VRML, > something that's sorely needed as people ask why they need a technology that > provides more than they know how to ask for. In this, the role of education > becomes clear: teach people how to ask. These tasks go hand in hand, and > have several forms; advertising, promotion, trade shows, conferences, and > seminars. > > Academic validation is necessary if VRML is to be expected to overflow the > industry and become a widespread field of research. However, there is no > outlet for papers dealing directly with VRML - so we must have regular > symposia, with published proceedings. This is necessary before we can > expect the services of legions of ambitious graduate students. > > All of this requires more organization than any of the other functions; > fortunately, several organizations have risen to the task. BAMTA has > volunteered to organize the next VRML symposium; indeed, they have received > the blessing of SDSC in their efforts. Similarly, I have been approached by > Miller Freeman who wish to organize a conference (and trade show, if that > makes sense) together with BAMTA. BAMTA's charter defines the organization > as primarily educational, so it could conceivably serve in both roles. This is great - again, leveraging the resources of external companies to benefit from this, rather than trying to do it all in-house. Excellent. A big part that seems missing, however, is the development of a library of resources on VRML. White papers, technical notes, the equivalent of SDSC's mini-Yahoo, etc - all that is critical to furthering the education of the public on what VRML is and how it works. In addition: tutorials, conference notes, archives of the VRML discussion forums, historical documents/timeline, regular polling booths, etc - I see all this as falling under the banner of "education", and as something which a consortium could uniquely provide, and which fulfills the goal of being authoritative without necessitating "power". I would suggest 2 full-time people for the education/web site development role, and I would suggest 1 full-time person for the marketing/conferences role, not to be confused with the person facilitating the in-person meetings. > Clearinghouse and Infrastructure > > Even in the best of all possible worlds, the Consortium will have some > modest infrastructure requirements. It will need to act as a clearing house > and directory, helping people locate the resources they need. This function > is all the more important in a radically decentralized organization. This > group will likely oversee membership and collect dues. > > It's probable that a small staff will need to be retained on a full-time > basis, as the custodians of the Consortium. Okay, let me collect together the list of initial staff requirements as outlined above: 1) Consortium meeting facilitator/planner 2) Mailing list and web site maintainer/admin 3) Conformance testing administrator/vendor relationships manager 4) Conformance testing engineer 5) *1/2 person* - QvLib developer/maintainer 6) Education materials developer/collector 7) Library maintainer/collector 8) Symposia/Trade Show facilitator On top of this I would add: 9) Director/President 10) Financials/accounting 11) operations/facilities 12) admin assistant 13) technical admin (networking/phones/computers) This is a very lean team given the requirements, but it's a start. a 12 1/2 person company, at below-market-but-livable-pay-rates for each of these positions (average 50K?) is $625K/year in salaries alone. Eeek. One way out of this is for some of these roles to be fulfilled by people working for third parties but "donated" to the cause in exchange for prominent notice. Donation of a conformance testing engineer would be far more valuable than $50K, for example. Similarly, some of these roles could be fulfilled by grad students or volunteers, perhaps not in full-time roles but doubled-up in 1/2-time roles. Some individuals may be willing to dedicate 1/2-time slots in exchange for prominent notice, if it helps them land book-writing gigs or whatever. If it seems like I'm focusing too much on the issue of compensation, it's because like others have said, we need to create a situation where there are solid reinforcing incentives for participation and devotion. I also think you need to answer the question "how much do you need" before outlining the costs and benefits of "membership". I think no matter how much donated help we get, we probably won't get below a yearly salary of $300K. A good metric for facilities are that they are usually double salaries, so let's say the consortium needs $600K a year to burn through, or $50K/month. These numbers could probably be sanity checked by talking with various consortium heads, like TimBL, but that number "feels" right for a professional operation. Let's work with that for now... > Organic Online (through the > generosity of Brian Behlendorf) has promised to contribute office space, > etc., to the Consortium as it goes through its start-up phase, and, > possibly, for sometime into the future. A promise to at least be involved in this process, though I can't make a promise on being able to incubate a 13-person company out of the goodness of our company's heart just yet. :) > MEMBERSHIP FEES > > I suggest that the Consortium follow the X Consortium model (which W3C has > adopted to its success) of charging membership fees of $50,000/year to > companies with revenues greater than $50,000,000/year, while charging a > $5,000/year membership to companies smaller than that. This keeps the > barriers to entry quite reasonable, while yielding as much as $500,000/year > in membership fees. We should do an informal survey of companies we expect would be the main contributors, to make sure that we can expect enough revenue to make this work. 10 large donors and 40 small donors will be sufficient to raise 700K, so that's a fairly obtainable number in my opinion. I go back and forth about the best way to raise money, but I can not find a way around needing that much money, so c'est la vie. Just make sure you don't tie it into a fixed 3-year contract starting on September 1994 like the W3C did. Now on to the benefits of membership and "the process". I don't have a complete mental model of how this should work, but here are some thoughts. In areas of fiscal control, I am comfortable with one dollar - one vote, though I don't feel that a "vote" should be needed more than quarterly, with the controller handling the day to day allocations and check signing and all that. In areas of policy setting, I think big donors and "little" donors should have an equal voice. This latter category includes specification ratification as its key activity - day to day operations should be managed by the president and the staff. I would be clear that this is an *industry*consortium*, not the IETF. However, to make sure that the voices of academia and the non-software-company community are heard, I propose that a certain number of seats - enough to clearly swing a controversial issue, say 25% - are open to invited members, invited by a vote of dues-paying members. What do companies get for their money? They are allowed to put some beef behind their claim that they "support the VRML process". They are perhaps allowed to use a special "VRML Consortium Member" logo on their software. It's unfortunately too late to really trademark "VRML", just as one couldn't trademark "Web" or "HTML" either, but I don't see that as a problem. Members have a strong role in deciding the future direction of the specification, as it is ultimately they who approve or reject a particular specification (just like the IESG's role in IETF standardization). Those are my random thoughts. I think it would be a *good*thing* if we soon met in person to try and work some of these things out. Since it looks like a majority of us are in the SF bay area, this seems like a logical place, and I can offer up a large conference room at Organic for our purposes.... Anyways, those are my semi-random thoughts. Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- brian@organic.com www.apache.org hyperreal.com http://www.organic.com/JOBS A great set of thoughts and recommendations, Mark. Thank you. Here are a few reactions. The biggest danger to everyone seriously involved in VRML is fracture of the process. My comments are aiming at preventing that possibility. I've always been concerned that the VAG is too (perhaps only?) business-centric. Academia is important. That's where many of the frontier ideas emerge. Those are the folks who can make technical arguments that can't be easily dismissed by company bosses as market driven. Occasionally you business guys (who make real money for a living :) seem pretty close to deadlock. Academic participation keeps technical validity, new ideas and long-term viability high on the priority list. SIGGRAPH is interested in the possibility of formally supporting VRML. An interesting recent e-mail discussion initiated by a new SIGGRAPH director-at-large included chairs of SIGGRAPH and SIGCOMM. I expect that joint sponsorship of workshops/conferences/journal issues about VRML will be welcome in both societies. These are exciting opportunities that can benefit everyone. I used to be pretty pumped up about W3C. Lately I'm not so sure. Just checked http://www.w3.org and followed the link to _Graphics_and_3D_ - lots of 2D formats, no 3D and no VRML. Perhaps an oversight. How about this quote from Musciano, Chuck and Kennedy, Bill, _HTML - The Definitive Guide_, O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastopol California, 1996, p. xix: _Whatever Happened to HTML 3.0?_ Depending on our mood, when people ask us about HTML 3.0, we respond with a groan, a bemused smile, or uproarious laughter. HTML 3.0 doesn't exist. Period. Anyone who tells you otherwise is sadly misinformed or just plain lying. HTML 3.0 would be the next version of the hypertext markup language standard if the members and committees of the World Wide Web Consortium responsible for such things could and would come to some agreement and formalize its contents. They won't in the near future, if ever. The standard currently is "deprecated," "on the back burner," "still under consideration": you label the dodge. All we know is that, for the foreseeable future, there is only one HTML standard: version 2.0. Frankly, the browser manufacturers are the tail wagging the HTML dog. [... much more deleted ...] OK now substitute VRML for HTML in the above and see how that feels. Shudder. I've been suspicious about W3C for a while. The HTML 2.0 RFC was approved in November 95. Gee, haven't people been using it a lot longer than six months? More worrisome news: the http draft is now in rewrite 5 for version 1.1. There is a http-ng effort on W3C that is joint with IETF, no Internet-Draft yet. There is no indication of a joint effort between W3C and IETF on HTML, though there is an "announcement" of HTML 3 at http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/Wilbur and a May 96 press release. Much fog... Who is running the Internet around here? I'd give more insight about W3C but I'm not a member of W3C. Why? You have to be a (paying) organization to join. That intentionally excludes me, an individual. OK how about the IETF? Here's what I like about IETF best: the process proceeds. Results work properly (due to 2 independent implementations of running code) or disappear. I'm not a member of IETF either. Why? Because there is no official membership. Anyone can participate, by subscribing/participating in mail lists/reading RFCs + drafts/ attending open working group meetings, in person or over MBone. Anyone can write and submit an RFC, which will get published (at least as a draft) if it meets reasonable criteria based on technical merit. Anyone can comment publicly on work in progress and expect a thoughtful response from the individuals who have volunteered to work on an issue. In doubt? Look over recent IPv6 (the next-generation Internet Protocol) books (e.g. Bradner/Mankin, Huitema). Unbelievable controversy. Some of it still smolders. Even so technical merit, rough consensus and working code carry the day. An open process. Controversies on www-vrml are as tame and civilized as tea time with the Queen of England compared to some of the bloodshed over there. No one person or company can stymie IETF progress (though many try, with motivations good and bad). The Internet continues to scale up. So what, you ask? That process, which drives to success or implodes in deadlock within a relatively short time period, is what keeps things moving forward. Nothing succeeds like success. I think we need to recognize (as many have) that the best parts of the VRML process are very similar to best the parts of the IETF process. It is not yet clear what the best parts of the W3C process are, one year into their part-open/part-closed/part-cooperate-with-IETF process. At a minimum we need to assess W3C strengths & weaknesses before embracing their rules or becoming a similar consortium. At a minimum VRML needs to keep an open mailing list and publish all draft & final specifications openly. Just in case anyone forgot, the main bottlenecks we now face in VRML are network related. Everyone is already pretty smart about the graphics. That is on one machine at a time. No one is really smart about the networked behaviors. Nobody has really done them on all the machines all the time simultaneously. >>> We have got to work with the network folks (IETF/W3C/SIGCOMM) to ensure that the technical requirements for large-scale internetworked interactive 3D environments are first-class design considerations in the emerging next-generation Internet. <<< All the graphics hardware in the world won't fix the network issues. Zooming back to our usual field of view, we do seem to be making good progress to date. Let's not screw up what works in VRML when some formalization gets added. Technical merit, practical progress, openness and avoiding rupture of the process remain good tie-breaking criteria. In that light, I hope this consortium discussion moves to the big vrml list soon. (How about bouncing over this whole thread of messages now?) Summary of tonite's rant: - Supporting sustained VRML progress is the main role of a consortium. - More academic emphasis. SIGGRAPH and SIGCOMM can help. - "It's the network, stupid." Use the best of IETF/W3C processes. - Stay completely open. Don't fix the parts that aren't broke. Thanks Mark and everybody for moving forward to build a consortium that best supports VRML. What an incredible group! all the best, Don -- Don Brutzman Naval Postgraduate School, Code UW/Br Root 200 work 408.656.2149 Monterey California 93943-5000 USA fax 408.656.3679 Virtual worlds/underwater robots/Internet http://www.stl.nps.navy.mil/~brutzman A great set of thoughts and recommendations, Mark. Thank you. Here are a few reactions. The biggest danger to everyone seriously involved in VRML is fracture of the process. My comments are aiming at preventing that possibility. I've always been concerned that the VAG is too (perhaps only?) business-centric. Academia is important. That's where many of the frontier ideas emerge. Those are the folks who can make technical arguments that can't be easily dismissed by company bosses as market driven. Occasionally you business guys (who make real money for a living :) seem pretty close to deadlock. Academic participation keeps technical validity, new ideas and long-term viability high on the priority list. SIGGRAPH is interested in the possibility of formally supporting VRML. An interesting recent e-mail discussion initiated by a new SIGGRAPH director-at-large included chairs of SIGGRAPH and SIGCOMM. I expect that joint sponsorship of workshops/conferences/journal issues about VRML will be welcome in both societies. These are exciting opportunities that can benefit everyone. I used to be pretty pumped up about W3C. Lately I'm not so sure. Just checked http://www.w3.org and followed the link to _Graphics_and_3D_ - lots of 2D formats, no 3D and no VRML. Perhaps an oversight. How about this quote from Musciano, Chuck and Kennedy, Bill, _HTML - The Definitive Guide_, O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastopol California, 1996, p. xix: _Whatever Happened to HTML 3.0?_ Depending on our mood, when people ask us about HTML 3.0, we respond with a groan, a bemused smile, or uproarious laughter. HTML 3.0 doesn't exist. Period. Anyone who tells you otherwise is sadly misinformed or just plain lying. HTML 3.0 would be the next version of the hypertext markup language standard if the members and committees of the World Wide Web Consortium responsible for such things could and would come to some agreement and formalize its contents. They won't in the near future, if ever. The standard currently is "deprecated," "on the back burner," "still under consideration": you label the dodge. All we know is that, for the foreseeable future, there is only one HTML standard: version 2.0. Frankly, the browser manufacturers are the tail wagging the HTML dog. [... much more deleted ...] OK now substitute VRML for HTML in the above and see how that feels. Shudder. I've been suspicious about W3C for a while. The HTML 2.0 RFC was approved in November 95. Gee, haven't people been using it a lot longer than six months? More worrisome news: the http draft is now in rewrite 5 for version 1.1. There is a http-ng effort on W3C that is joint with IETF, no Internet-Draft yet. There is no indication of a joint effort between W3C and IETF on HTML, though there is an "announcement" of HTML 3 at http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/Wilbur and a May 96 press release. Much fog... Who is running the Internet around here? I'd give more insight about W3C but I'm not a member of W3C. Why? You have to be a (paying) organization to join. That intentionally excludes me, an individual. OK how about the IETF? Here's what I like about IETF best: the process proceeds. Results work properly (due to 2 independent implementations of running code) or disappear. I'm not a member of IETF either. Why? Because there is no official membership. Anyone can participate, by subscribing/participating in mail lists/reading RFCs + drafts/ attending open working group meetings, in person or over MBone. Anyone can write and submit an RFC, which will get published (at least as a draft) if it meets reasonable criteria based on technical merit. Anyone can comment publicly on work in progress and expect a thoughtful response from the individuals who have volunteered to work on an issue. In doubt? Look over recent IPv6 (the next-generation Internet Protocol) books (e.g. Bradner/Mankin, Huitema). Unbelievable controversy. Some of it still smolders. Even so technical merit, rough consensus and working code carry the day. An open process. Controversies on www-vrml are as tame and civilized as tea time with the Queen of England compared to some of the bloodshed over there. No one person or company can stymie IETF progress (though many try, with motivations good and bad). The Internet continues to scale up. So what, you ask? That process, which drives to success or implodes in deadlock within a relatively short time period, is what keeps things moving forward. Nothing succeeds like success. I think we need to recognize (as many have) that the best parts of the VRML process are very similar to best the parts of the IETF process. It is not yet clear what the best parts of the W3C process are, one year into their part-open/part-closed/part-cooperate-with-IETF process. At a minimum we need to assess W3C strengths & weaknesses before embracing their rules or becoming a similar consortium. At a minimum VRML needs to keep an open mailing list and publish all draft & final specifications openly. Just in case anyone forgot, the main bottlenecks we now face in VRML are network related. Everyone is already pretty smart about the graphics. That is on one machine at a time. No one is really smart about the networked behaviors. Nobody has really done them on all the machines all the time simultaneously. >>> We have got to work with the network folks (IETF/W3C/SIGCOMM) to ensure that the technical requirements for large-scale internetworked interactive 3D environments are first-class design considerations in the emerging next-generation Internet. <<< All the graphics hardware in the world won't fix the network issues. Zooming back to our usual field of view, we do seem to be making good progress to date. Let's not screw up what works in VRML when some formalization gets added. Technical merit, practical progress, openness and avoiding rupture of the process remain good tie-breaking criteria. In that light, I hope this consortium discussion moves to the big vrml list soon. (How about bouncing over this whole thread of messages now?) Summary of tonite's rant: - Supporting sustained VRML progress is the main role of a consortium. - More academic emphasis. SIGGRAPH and SIGCOMM can help. - "It's the network, stupid." Use the best of IETF/W3C processes. - Stay completely open. Don't fix the parts that aren't broke. Thanks Mark and everybody for moving forward to build a consortium that best supports VRML. What an incredible group! all the best, Don -- Don Brutzman Naval Postgraduate School, Code UW/Br Root 200 work 408.656.2149 Monterey California 93943-5000 USA fax 408.656.3679 Virtual worlds/underwater robots/Internet http://www.stl.nps.navy.mil/~brutzman Linus comments, most good, but: > Adoption of new technical specs. -- Every member gets one vote. A > simple majority (50% or more votes passes). This needs to be higher, or by consensus. 50% does not a standard make. Source code: not for proposals, but for the standards. Nothing like free source code to make something popular. Members of the conosrtium would get early access to the source code - this would pool development efforts of thornier pieces. I believe the whole point of this early mail is to give us a heads up. We should widen the circle as quickly as we can, but we can't do more than have warm fuzzies until people get draft contracts and say whether they have the money. -- YON - Jan C. Hardenbergh, jch@netscape.com, www.netscape.com/people/jch "Imagination is more important than knowledge" A. Einstein At 03:02 PM 6/27/96 +0900, Mark Pesce wrote: >I do believe that free source code (even if it's written by college interns) >is a necessary requirement for accepting a proposal. I covered that in the >introductory message; it maintains an effective developmental ecology. I don';t have a problem with free source code being available, but requiring it for any proposal - for example for a new node, or protocol or whatever - removes the incentive for companies to put their proposals into the public domain, the incentive that they are ahead of the competiton. - Mitra ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mitra, Chief Network Technology Officer, Paragraph Int'l Home: +1(415)826-2499 Office: +1(408)364-7700 mitra@earth.path.net http://earth.path.net/mitra **** Life is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved ****** >Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 15:02:23 +0900 >To: vag@vag.vrml.org, clay@bigbook.com >From: Mark Pesce >Subject: Quips Custodi Ipse Custodes? >Cc: sulam@construct.net, mmccue@paperinc.com, alan.scott@virtus.com, > greening@chaco.com, gray@bamta.org, pajamas@sirius.com, > mitra@paragraph.com, frerichs@sgi.com, tchilds@well.com, > brian@organic.com, dcolleen@planet9.com, linas@austin.ibm.com, > barrus@merl.com, watson@nas.nasa.gov, brutzman@cs.nps.navy.mil > >To All Concerned (Again) - > >Clay Graham (Mitra too) has raised an important and hitherto unaddressed >issue: who governs the consortium? The subject line of this message is one >of my favorite Latin quotes (and probably misspelled): "Who shall guard the >guardians?" > >I suggest the Consortium have a "Board of Directors" that resembles the UN >Security Council. The big boys (W3C calls them the "Big Six") would have >permanent seats at the table (after all, they paid $50,000 for them) while >the little folks (aka, the rest of us) would be content to rotate through >the remaining board seats. We could set it up such that the smaller >companies could rotate through the seats every few years, or we could select >them through some form of election. > >In either case, I think this proposal will satisfy Mitra's question (that >is, what are these folks paying for?), and address Clay's question of a >guiding body for the Consortium. Umm, before you decide the answer, figure out what the governing body will do. Write this down. Then ask yourself "who will want to have a say in this activity?" Those will be the people who will want to be on the governing body. I envision several different activites, which may have different ways of structuring votes: Financial oversight -- e.g. paying salaries, rent, etc. Members get one vote for every dollar they kicked in. Adoption of new technical specs. -- Every member gets one vote. A simple majority (50% or more votes passes). Changing the bylaws of Consortium, admitting new members to Consortium, disolving the Consortium -- Every member gets one vote. A super-majority (67%, 75% of vote, or more) is required to pass resolution. Controversial financial funding -- e.g. funding for development of conformance test suites. Hmm ... one vote per dollar?, with at least 2/3's in approval before project is started? I'm hoping that when you get past the above, you won't need a (big, powerful) board of directors, because most of the work will get done in committee. I hate this "big folks/little folks" stuff, because its just segregation, only not by skin color. You want everyone to feel like they've got a good deal, not just the "big folks". --linas >Thoughts? > >Mark >--- >Mark Pesce * mpesce@netcom.com >http://www.hyperreal.com/~mpesce/ > >"Why not?" - Dr. Timothy Leary (1921 - 1996) > > > Hi Mark, Jeez, you write very long notes. Well, here's a long reply as punishment. My experience with standards bodies and my vision for what a VRML consortium might be like are a bit different. It has less to do with power & authority as it does with providing a physical place for congregating, and an impartial body for mediating disputes. It would also be nice if the consortium could handle money, so that it could fund, for example, development of a conformance suite and/or other tools. In order to handle money, the Consortium would have to be a legal entity ("constituted under the laws of the United States", etc.), probably a non-for-profit corporation. So let me touch on some of the points in your note: -- "owning VRML" -- Most standards bodies get hi-jacked by the company that ships the greatest number of products soonest. Usually, the other folks don't mind being hijacked ... as long as they get early access to the specs, and other insider information. Ownership is really determined by who writes the spec/who codes to the spec. As best as I can tell, standards bodies fall apart for three reasons: -- personal reasons -- the people who attend the meetings don't get along (for a zillion reasons ... power, credit, stroking, acknowledgment, usual psych textbook stuff), and argue. -- lack of enforcement -- the standards body comes to agreement on something, which the standards representative is unable to enforce once they get back home. Basically, the folks back home decide to do it thier way, and screw the standards body. -- lethargy -- everyone gets too tired to re-re-re-review the spec, everyone gets depressed, and no conclusion is reached. (Equivalently, everyone is so busy fixing bugs at home that they are too busy to think about the future). I wouldn't worry about ownersip; I'd worry about a lack of access to the owners. You've got ill-will, phlegm and spite when you have a neat idea and the guy who creates the VRML browsers doesn't even want to listen to you. The goal here is to keep the defacto-owners involved with the community, and make sure that the community knows the names, addresses, phones numbers of the defacto owners. (think of microsoft & activevrml when you read the above). -- "decentralization". Cool. That just means that there are so many people interested, that they won't all fit into one room. What my non-gaian management needs/expects/wants is: -- a formal organization with an official sounding name (letterhead with that name on it for bonus points). -- Regularly scheduled meetings, 3-4 times a year. Meeting dates are known 1 year in advance, so that conflicts with trade shows, etc. can be avoided. -- Agendas for meetings published at least a month before meeting date. -- A list of members; minutes from previous meetings. Someone who has the title "president" and can be called if there are questions. -- A charter: a document that explains who we are, what we expect to accomplish, why we exist, etc. This is the document where you can wax philosphical. What we DONT care about is whether we are affiliated with IETF, with X/Open, with ISO, W3C, whatever. I do not see any obvious reason to be affiliated with any of these groups at this time. Of course, if at a later time, we realize that it would be stupid to NOT be part of e.g. W3C, then we can join/merge/collaborate/partner at that time. But right now, I don't see what these groups do to make VRML better. Maybe it would be fun to have meetings the week before/after W3C meets, in the same city, but that doesn't mean that you have to be born joined at the hip. (Maybe you can save money on office rent and postage by joining one of these groups, but if that the only reason, its bogus.) So my take is -- forget these other bodies, just be independent of them and if some day there is a good reason to join them we can do that. -- Conformance & Compliance. Yep, sure maybe NIST or other group can be funded to do conformance tests. But the decision to fund should be made by the people, kicking in the money, and it MUST be made in a face to face meeting. Now, there are two ways to do this -- -- each new project requires each decentralized member to cut a check to whoever does the work. Yuck. -- members cut a check to the consortium, which pays the 3rd party. I much prefer the latter, from experience. The problem with the former is that the legal guys want to have a legal contract so that they can enforce the law if someone embezzles the money. But they take months & longer to negotiate a contract. Each new time the have to start from scratch. I don't know why. They do. They're lawyers. And then they go on vacation, and forget, and have to start ALL OVER AGAIN. And you can't even sue them for incompetence. Meanwhile, no one gets paid, nothing gets done. Screw that. If you build a real, legal body, a VRML Consortium, which might be a non-profit corporation, or something else, then you have the legal hassles only once. After that, you can collect dues and spend money without going through a long hassle with people who don't care. -- democracy & authority. I see where your arguments are going, but I think that you've already seen a better, workable model for balancing democracy against authority. (1) Set up working groups to make proposals. Members of the working group have complete authority over thier proposals. After the working group has completed a proposal, (2) the main body votes to accept or reject the proposal. The vote is a democracy; the vote is binding. The voters do NOT have line item veto -- either the entire proposal is accepted, or none of it. The main body does NOT have the authority to nit-pick ("gee I liked this node, but not that one"). If no proposal is accepted, then the working groups are sent back and told to try again. This should result in a good balance between power & authority, and address some of the concerns you have. No one can be dictator & have too much power -- the democracy/vote assures that. But the democracy is powerless unless they have something to vote on -- engineering experts making proposals to the voting body -- thus allowing "the recognized authorities" to have a voice, to be heard. Thus, there is balance. Note that it might happen that the same people are on the working group and the main body ... maybe even meet in the same room. It is important to realize that these two activities are distinct, and that they DO NEED to be formalized. You MUST have a single, central authority so that you don't get ties. Luckily, for VRML2.0, Moving Worlds had most of the votes, and there weren't any close 2nd place. But imagine the chaos that might of happend if there was a tie. Which standard to you code to? which do you develop to? Both? Neither? It's bad enough that Microsoft went ahead with it's stuff anyway, as has Apple. At least they aren't calling it VRML & confusing everyone. -- Timing. Well, the guy who promised me the $50K for the Consortium no longer works here. I think I know of other parts of IBM that might be willing to fund this, but I'd have to work to get this pledge. Consensus vs. paperwork. -- Hate to say it ... but paperwork is everything. Hate to say that but ... a lot of people thought 3D over teh web was cool, but until there was a spec, there was squat. Same here -- I think a consortium is cool, and so does my boss. But till there is paper that explains who/what/how, its squat. Remember, in order for IBM to join, I would have to show the paperwork to IBM Contracts, to IBM Intellectual Property, to IBM Site Communications, to IBM Site Legal, to IBM Disbursement, and to my bosses, bosses boss. They all will have something they will want different, and they won't care if either you or I sink or swim. They only care about fraud, bad PR, disreputable associations, lack of rules & regs, protection of patented inventions, etc. It's like walking through a field of land-mines. --linas Sincerely, Linas Vepstas ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^ Linas Vepstas Graphics Architecture IBM RS/6000 Zip 4449 Tie Line: 678-1116 11400 Burnet Road External Phone: 1-(512)-838-1116 Austin TX 78758-4449 mail: linas@austin.ibm.com ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^ To All Concerned (Again) - Clay Graham (Mitra too) has raised an important and hitherto unaddressed issue: who governs the consortium? The subject line of this message is one of my favorite Latin quotes (and probably misspelled): "Who shall guard the guardians?" I suggest the Consortium have a "Board of Directors" that resembles the UN Security Council. The big boys (W3C calls them the "Big Six") would have permanent seats at the table (after all, they paid $50,000 for them) while the little folks (aka, the rest of us) would be content to rotate through the remaining board seats. We could set it up such that the smaller companies could rotate through the seats every few years, or we could select them through some form of election. In either case, I think this proposal will satisfy Mitra's question (that is, what are these folks paying for?), and address Clay's question of a guiding body for the Consortium. Thoughts? Mark --- Mark Pesce * mpesce@netcom.com http://www.hyperreal.com/~mpesce/ "Why not?" - Dr. Timothy Leary (1921 - 1996) I've been asked by the UniForum Technical steering committee if you would be willing to do an article on VRML V2.0 for the UniForum Monthly Magazine. The article would run in the Jun '97 issue and would be due in Mar of '97. Are you familiar with the UniForum magazine? If not I can have them send you a sample along with a description of what they're looking for in an article. -Pete ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >From mpesce@sirius.com Mon May 27 09:07:37 1996 Received: by csac.ljo.dec.com; id AA03420; Mon, 27 May 1996 09:07:36 -0400 Received: from mail1.digital.com by vanna.ljo.dec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/10Oct94-8.2MPM) id AA02018; Mon, 27 May 1996 08:59:06 -0400 Received: from moon.sirius.com by mail1.digital.com (5.65 EXP 4/12/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA28196; Mon, 27 May 1996 06:01:13 -0700 Received: from brendan.sirius.com (ppp024-sf1.sirius.com [205.134.227.24]) by moon.sirius.com (8.6.12/8.6.9p) with SMTP id FAA11030 for ; Mon, 27 May 1996 05:59:45 -0700 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960527125554.00e963c4@sirius.com> X-Sender: mpesce@sirius.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 05:55:54 -0700 To: Pete Smith From: Mark Pesce Subject: Re: X/Open developing a VRML brand Status: RO Pete - Thanks much for your message; I will send you a real reply in about 2 weeks, but I have to go off on another European tour right now and won't be able to reply to you unil then. I am very interested in persuing the X/Open relationship and thank you for your efforts in this direction. Mark Pesce At 11:10 AM 5/21/96 -0400, you wrote: >Mark > >This is Pete Smith we met briefly at the Paris mayor's reception at the >IW3C2 conference, where we discussed the possibility of establishing an >X/Open brand for VRML. > >We (the X/Open Technical Managers) had a meeting the following week in >Munich and we agreed to further investigate the possibility of setting >up a VRML brand. The person in charge of the X/Open "Information >Highway" program is Chris Harding whom I'm cc'ing on this message. > >Chris will be the formal liaison to X/Open and will be managing the >project should be agree that it is mutually beneficial. > >There are a lot of questions that exist on both sides I assume. One >of the major ones on our side will be IPR. In other words if we adopt >VRML as a specification for which X/Open provides a test suite and a >brand are we in danger of potentially violating someone's IPR rights. >Does your organization have legal and unencumbered ownership of the >VRML spec. > >As part of submitting a spec to X/Open, X/Open must obtain the IPR >rights to the spec. This doesn't that you can't continue to develop >and evovle it (the X-Windows spec being a good example), it simply >means that X/Open owns the IPR to snapshot of the spec that it is >endorsing and providing a brand for. > >I'm going to be on the west coast June 3'rd and if it makes sense we >could get together to sort out the issues and details. X/Open has an >office in Menlo Park right on El-Camino Royal so we could set up a >meeting there with Chris potentially tied in via phone. > >Let me know what you think. > >-Pete > > > ----- mpesce@netcom.com * http://www.hyperreal.com/~mpesce mpesce@xs4all.nl * http://xs4all.nl/~mpesce (from Europe) Interface infinitely mutable inevitably seduces then dominates. Mitra - >While most of your proposals make sense its unclear whether > >a) companies will be willing to pay membership fees to a body which - >according to your proposals - gives them no more say than anyone who has not >paid Agreed; they're paying up to get focused chaos and anarchy, rather than unfocused chaos and anarchy. They're paying for resources - such as web sites and conformance tests and marketing and regular meetings of standards bodies. They aren't paying for control. If that's what they want to pay for, the consortium does not want their money. [ Incidentially, I haven't heard this voiced as a requirment by anyone. ] >b) whether IETF or W3C have the neccesary routines to manage VRML - I know >IETF doesn't because it won't allow a vote, and without the option of a vote >its impossible to move past the objections of even one member. I don't >believe we could have got past the multiple VRML2.0 proposals stage without >being able to go to a vote. My proposal is that they manage the infrastructure required for such events; the parlimentary procedures would be our own, and, I think, would allow both for voting and consensus formation. Thus, it would not be a W3C/IETF organization, per se, but a VRML Consortium organization under W3C/IETF organizational auspices. >I' m not familiar enough with W3C to know if >its process will work, but I believe it requires free source-code before >accepting a proposal, and that is a huge impediment to getting people to >donate their protocols. I do believe that free source code (even if it's written by college interns) is a necessary requirement for accepting a proposal. I covered that in the introductory message; it maintains an effective developmental ecology. >c) whether a slower body will get listened to by the companies in this >field. VRML has standardised far faster than ISO or IETF can move things, >but even then it is barely keeping up with the pace of development. You're right - I don't think that the slower bodies will be listened to. In fact, they are listening to us. >If ..... NIST is doing certification, symposiums are self funding, IETF is >doing standards, www-vrml is our main communications forum, companies are >doing their own research and development, then ... .why would we need a >consortium? This is precisely my point. We need some minimal structure to coordinate these activities, but most of it is self funding. Again, I much prefer X/Open to NIST for conformance tests, because a commercial organization has a compelling reason to do things well, while a government organization doesn't. (It's the libertarian in me, I guess.) And what about Black Sun, OZ and other non-US companies? Will US resources be spent in their conformance tests? I doubt it. >If, on the other hand the consortium is doing some of these >activities, then I could see the need for one with a budget of around >$200,000 to support two or three administrative people making everything >happen smoothly - for example, much as I value SGI's contribution, I'd >rather see spec editing be in the hands of neutral tech writers rather than >in the hands of one company. Exactly. I don't mean to set the dues in advance of our budgeting process - but I do expect that conformance tests will be expensive to establish and maintain. But you've got my idea; keep it small, light, and fast. Mark --- Mark Pesce * mpesce@netcom.com http://www.hyperreal.com/~mpesce/ "Why not?" - Dr. Timothy Leary (1921 - 1996) Hi Mark, A couple more quick remarks. >Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 17:48:05 +0900 >To: linas@austin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas) >From: Mark Pesce >Subject: Re: Power, Persistence and Consortia > >Linas - > >All of your points are true & well taken. It will all be legal and tight - Note that "legal" is a very squishy thing. The big question is not "will there be legal language", but "will the legal language say things we agree to". If you just want legal language, you go to the bookstore, buy "how to form your own corporation", and copy the bylaws out of the back. What I'm urging is a plain-english document that explains -- how to join -- is membership open to all? is it by invitation only? How many companies can I invite per year? Is "big six" really six, or can it be 7, 8, 9, 15, 20? Can it be 3? If drops by attrition to only 3, will the consortium be automatically dissolved, or does it get to live? -- relationship of steering committe (if any) to working subgroups. -- how to join steering committe. -- how to get kicked off of sterring comittee (e.g. for OpenGL, failing to attend 4 meetings in a row was grounds for calling a vote to kick you off.). Does this need 75% of vote? -- how many representatives per member may attend? Are non-members allowed to observe? Maybe non-members can be active in subgroups, but are barred from the room during steering comittee meetings. -- will consortium have the legal right to use any & all documentation in any way that it wishes, including rights to re-publish, re-license, etc? Will only members have access to specs, or will the general public? -- Will the consortium demand that new member sign & adhere to non-disclosure agreements? Or will these not be required? (For example .. look at netscape html extensions. It is not clear if these are in public domain, or not. If IBM built a browser that supported netscape html extensions, does netscape have grounds to sue? You want to make sure that the consortium either owns the specs, or has the right to grant others the right to code to the specs. I can't afford to figure out the legal status of each new document I get; sign yet another agreement for each new document, etc.. There has to be a blanket agreement. You also want to keep it simple. For example, IBM is scared of GNU GPL not because its free, but because its so long and convoluted that the IBM lawyers can't figure out what it's really saying. Sadly, as a result, I can't touch GNU code. Once you get potential members agreeing to the above, then you hand it to the lawyers and they cross-compile it into legalese. They'll also issue compiler errors -- they'll tell you if we are attempting anything illegal. If it helps, I can fax you the OpenGL Architecture Board Membership Agreement and Bylaws. Its six pages long. Note the ARB is NOT a corporataion, and does not have the right to handle money. It does legally control the specs, and some source code. It does not pay salaries. --linas >because SGI and Apple will require it, too - and will conform (at the >minimum) to your suggestions. > >More as follows; thanks for the most excellent comments. > >Mark P.S. I think I can renew a pledge of membership dues. Although the person who originally made the pledges is gone, I found two other people who have cash and the right to spend it. One of them is from IBM Digitial Library, the folks who made the big splash about VRML+ at siggraph last year. If you want a more formal pledge, or to talk to them, let me know. --linas P.P.S. Note that loaning or giving away (old) hardware is usually/always easier than giving money. Mark I'm having UniForum send you a copy of their magazine. On the X/Open side of things I'm going to be on the west coast for a couple of days, perhaps we can get together between 7/15-7/17 to dis- cuss VRML branding. -Pete Clay Graham wrote: > > At 03:54 PM 6/26/96 +0900, Mark Pesce wrote: > >It's probable that a small staff will need to be retained on a full-time > >basis, as the custodians of the Consortium. Organic Online (through the > >generosity of Brian Behlendorf) has promised to contribute office space, > >etc., to the Consortium as it goes through its start-up phase, and, > >possibly, for sometime into the future. > > > > the keeper of Alexandria is no small task. > > the only question is... > > WHO? This is a sticky wicket. We got delayed for many months because we wanted to answer that question before starting. Certainly, the custodians will make or break the consortium, but if we wait to answer that question, it will become moot. -- YON - Jan C. Hardenbergh <> jch@netscape.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge" A. Einstein Mark and Mitra have articulated my thoughts well. Although I am respectful of the ACM, SIGGRAPH, and SIGCOMM, I would not entrust standardization efforts to those bodies because academicians tend to be very slow (aka patient, polite). There is a vibrancy in the VRML community, in part due to the frenzy and impatience that accompanies commercial activity. We make fast, practical, possibly-flawed trade-off decisions, whereas academic decisionmaking tends to be more conservative, wanting to explore different options and understand all the ramifications. I prefer fast over perfect and late. I'm have similar feelings about NIST--although in that case they can do little harm by being slow and may provide great benefits by being fast--so there is value in that relationship. However, before wasting time in this area we should talk to the X consortium to find out how their X validation suite was used. I've never seen an X-server company cite the validation suite in an ad, nor have I seen an article comparing X-servers using the validation suite, for example. In part, this is because everyone used the same MIT source base anyway, so they were all close to compliant. Maybe things will be different for VRML. Mark's comments about source code are interesting. I don't know of an organization prepared to create/contribute a source base, and so we must provide an incentive or drop the notion. On the other hand, the commercial sphere can coopt and distort the standard to favor large companies with vested interests. I suggest that the VRML governing body be populated this way: big organization pays $50,000, you have one vote. Little organizations and academic institutions pay $5000, you and your peers may elect representatives equal in number to the quantity of big companies. Executive Director breaks ties. This presumes that there are more little companies involved than big. If there are fewer, each little company/academic institution has one vote. The advantage of this strategy is that smaller company representatives tend to be there because they have to be, so they know what's going on and influence toward end-user needs. On the other hand, they have little market muscle. Bigger company representatives tend to be more distant from the technology, but when they decide to support something it can have major market impact. The two together make an uneasy but fertile marriage. Dan Greening, Ph.D. Chaco Communications, Inc. 10164 Parkwood Dr. Suite 8 greening@chaco.com 408-865-0657 fax 865-0571 Cupertino, CA 95014 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Create multimedia social spaces with Pueblo. http://www.chaco.com/pueblo/ At 08:56 PM 6/26/96 +0700, Rikk Carey wrote: >As a result of too much caffeine, I may have mis-read and over-reacted >to Mitra`s message. I now believe that Mitra was speculating about >possible IETF standardization. >If so, then I`d like to say that we should continue with the ISO >process. I will be very happy to meet with IETF people. But, >plan to finish the work we started with ISO. If is possible to >somehow combine ISO and IETF as a standard, then this is fine >too. Yes Rikk - that is what I was speculating about - and I'm not at the joint meeting of ISOC and IETF. I know most of the key people at IETF, and was planning on informally asking what we should do, probably going the informational-rfc route, i.e. publish an RFC that describes a standard created elsewhere. I'm not suggesting stopping the ISO work, although for the internet, ISO standards are largely irrelevant - there history is of creating standards (X.400, X.25 etc) which the Internet doesn't use. To get support on the net we need to slot into IETF in a similar way that W3O standards do. - Mitra ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mitra, Chief Network Technology Officer, Paragraph Int'l Home: +1(415)826-2499 Office: +1(408)364-7700 mitra@earth.path.net http://earth.path.net/mitra **** Life is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved ****** private mail-reply not sent to the list. > Clay Graham (Mitra too) has raised an important and hitherto unaddressed > issue: who governs the consortium? The subject line of this message is one > of my favorite Latin quotes (and probably misspelled): "Who shall guard the > guardians?" > my initial reaction was similar to my attitude towards american politicians. anyone who *wants* to be in power ought to be disqualified! :-) my second thought was that given the probability that inversion_wave repurcusion will sweep through our entire spectrum of business practices, I predict that the next pop-exec creation will be CEU ( Chief Enterprise untangler). given what we've seen building up on the fringe, it will be short order before those legally bound to the health of the bottom line, notice that the changes are indeed *everything about everything*. Why you can hardly flip a page or turn a channel uh where was I- oh yeah- without finding some incredulous journaldroid sweating profusely and muttering about the whole fucking thing acting like it was upside down -or- up for grabs to the next college kid with a poor attendance record. > I suggest the Consortium have a "Board of Directors" that resembles the UN > Security Council. The big boys (W3C calls them the "Big Six") would have > permanent seats at the table (after all, they paid $50,000 for them) while > the little folks (aka, the rest of us) would be content to rotate through > the remaining board seats. We could set it up such that the smaller > companies could rotate through the seats every few years, or we could select > them through some form of election. make a 100K -guaranteed-no-boredseat position for the ones who'll pay to know what they really think. or point them at me beter yet :-) > In either case, I think this proposal will satisfy Mitra's question (that > is, what are these folks paying for?), and address Clay's question of a > guiding body for the Consortium. I note you say nothing of any substantive quality :-) but then all is zero before the great one. PS still got your little european voltage thingy. better do a hostage swap soon or it will disappear into the morrass. > Thoughts? are things. LUX ./. owen While most of your proposals make sense its unclear whether a) companies will be willing to pay membership fees to a body which - according to your proposals - gives them no more say than anyone who has not paid b) whether IETF or W3C have the neccesary routines to manage VRML - I know IETF doesn't because it won't allow a vote, and without the option of a vote its impossible to move past the objections of even one member. I don't believe we could have got past the multiple VRML2.0 proposals stage without being able to go to a vote. I' m not familiar enough with W3C to know if its process will work, but I believe it requires free source-code before accepting a proposal, and that is a huge impediment to getting people to donate their protocols. c) whether a slower body will get listened to by the companies in this field. VRML has standardised far faster than ISO or IETF can move things, but even then it is barely keeping up with the pace of development. If ..... NIST is doing certification, symposiums are self funding, IETF is doing standards, www-vrml is our main communications forum, companies are doing their own research and development, then ... .why would we need a consortium? If, on the other hand the consortium is doing some of these activities, then I could see the need for one with a budget of around $200,000 to support two or three administrative people making everything happen smoothly - for example, much as I value SGI's contribution, I'd rather see spec editing be in the hands of neutral tech writers rather than in the hands of one company. - Mitra ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mitra, Chief Network Technology Officer, Paragraph Int'l Home: +1(415)826-2499 Office: +1(408)364-7700 mitra@earth.path.net http://earth.path.net/mitra **** Life is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved ****** At 03:54 PM 6/26/96 +0900, Mark Pesce wrote: >To all concerned - > >Over the last several months I have given out that the next logical point in >the growth and development of VRML is through the formation of a body which >acts to stabilize it. This body - hereafter referred to as the "Consortium" >would seek to reify the VRML community in four fundamental areas: > > 1) Standards and Specifications > > 2) Conformance and Compliance > > 3) Research and Development > > 4) Marketing and Education > sound areas of focus.... >There seems to be little doubt that such an organization is needed. Indeed, >the recent tumult concerning VRMLScript and Java has proven the case >definitively. If no one is in control here - which is clearly and >persistently the case - we must at least have a locus, a central point to >which we can turn and return. > >That, at least, is the theory. > Although I don't think a consortium would have solved this it certainly would have helped. It seems that all the really cool synergy that was going on in the event modeling days has kinof ...uh...evaporated.(IMHO) >On a personal note, several of you have noted that I've been withdrawing >from some of my VRML activities. I resigned as list moderator of www-vrml >(has this role been filled?), and have consistently taken actions designed >to limit my own power and influence. This has been interpreted variously - >that I've "grown tired" of VRML, or that I'm sick of the politics, or just >that I've gotten too famous (or weird, take your pick) to care about the >community. Just yesterday Gavin told me that, to all appearances, it seemed >as though I was looking for less responsibility. I replied that there are >two types of responsibilities: those which you possess of yourself, and >those which others impose on you. I told him that I was expanding the >former while dispensing with the latter - to the greatest possible degree. > Honestly though Mark I think one thing should never change, no matter your position on power, is that your role as an evangelist should continue. (my opinion again..its yer life but it does seem like you still care) >This must not happen to VRML. Nothing would bring ruin to our collective >efforts more quickly than to turn VRML into a locus of power, for that would >quickly lead to a corrupting collapse. In the accelerated speeds associated >with proximity to the black hole of the Noosphere, it wouldn't take long at >all, perhaps less than 24 months. I agree again. Maybe (this is just a lame proposal) there is a voting mechanism for entry by the other consortium members, and some involvement by the mailing list, that allows for a representitive approach. Thats why I also hope that if there is a consortium that it requires one technical person and one developer rep for each bussiness joining. >The requirements of authority are dramatically different. The Druids - >occupying this role in the ancient Celtic lands - gave their requirements as >these: > > 1) Provided with sustenance wherever they might go; > 2) Forbidden that weapons be drawn in their presence; > 3) Judgements be honored above all others. > >The Druids were a nomadic priestly caste, much like the Chinese sages, and >these rules embody a natural form of authority - decentralized, non-violent, >and possessed of unquestionable integrity. I believe it is possible to >translate these ideals into modern forms, ones which would be appropriate to >the Consortium. > ok folks remember that Jung studied the Druids too, don't wave this stuff off too soon. Look at what it is trying to say... >A DECENTRALIZED BODY > >Paradoxically, a centralized Consortium is actually the greatest threat to >VRML. Any body which claimed to "own" VRML would, by its very existence, >strangle the micro-developmental ecology which has thus far been the sole >strength of VRML. While it may be appealing to have a "home" for VRML, we >must content ourselves to a multiplicity of homes - each with slightly >different dialects, customs and considerations - as the best insurance for a >solid future. Diversity - emergent in situations of decentralized >authority - is the essential element in any sustainable ecology. > that's why the consortium mustt have some sort of representitive approach. First representitive of the developer community. Having each company's developer evangelist on the consortium makes sense, then a representiive of the engineering community of the bussiness who is neccessary to create technology, and somehow someway involvement by the mailing list. Rememember that *ideally* in American government we have representitives so we don't have to personally become intimate with every aspect of an issue, we hire people to "represent" our interests. Honestly I don't know how this would work yet, but I do believe it addresses your concerns. >Specifications and Standards > >Perhaps the finest example of a decentralized specification authority is the >Internet Engineering Task Force, or IETF. While it has come under fire of >late as increasingly ineffective, the model is still quite solid. We might >seek to formalize certain parliamentary practices (the IETF has very few of >these) in order to bring a certain stability to actions-of-the-group, but >beyond this, I believe that the IETF model most closely conforms to the >www-vrml/VAG model which has been successfully established. an answer to my lameness. >Conformance and Compliance > >As important as specifications are to VRML, it is equally important to >ensure that products and services are conformant with it. In order to >create a developmental ecology - where implementations can compete on the >basis of quality and features - I recommend that we adopt a lenient >definition of compliance: implementations are allowed to exceed the >specification as long as they are compliant with it. > are we to shun the violators? will there be public hangings? >Research and Development > >Free source code is the backbone of the Internet - from the original CERN >Line-Mode browser code used to construct Labyrinth, to the QvLib VRML >parser, our entire field has consistently benefited from a wide range of >free tools. The future must be broad enough for a college undergraduate to >be able to prototype the next "insanely great" VRML application from an >assortment of freely available parts. These tools need not be of the >highest quality; it is enough that they are fully functional. > a reward based structure would help this.... > >Marketing and Education > >Finally, we come to the most visible face of the Consortium. Marketing >serves to get the word out about the availability and uses of VRML, >something that's sorely needed as people ask why they need a technology that >provides more than they know how to ask for. In this, the role of education >becomes clear: teach people how to ask. These tasks go hand in hand, and >have several forms; advertising, promotion, trade shows, conferences, and >seminars. > education is allways sorely ignored, again a reward based structure is needed to give this meat. >Clearinghouse and Infrastructure > >Even in the best of all possible worlds, the Consortium will have some >modest infrastructure requirements. It will need to act as a clearing house >and directory, helping people locate the resources they need. This function >is all the more important in a radically decentralized organization. This >group will likely oversee membership and collect dues. > >It's probable that a small staff will need to be retained on a full-time >basis, as the custodians of the Consortium. Organic Online (through the >generosity of Brian Behlendorf) has promised to contribute office space, >etc., to the Consortium as it goes through its start-up phase, and, >possibly, for sometime into the future. > the keeper of Alexandria is no small task. the only question is... WHO? >MEMBERSHIP FEES > >I suggest that the Consortium follow the X Consortium model (which W3C has >adopted to its success) of charging membership fees of $50,000/year to >companies with revenues greater than $50,000,000/year, while charging a >$5,000/year membership to companies smaller than that. This keeps the >barriers to entry quite reasonable, while yielding as much as $500,000/year >in membership fees. > good first stab, I think your gonna get a lot of flack on who is large or who is small. A large company may have a small VRML department. >BUDGETS >I proposal that all organizations wishing to serve as "subcontractors" are >required to file budgets which can be reviewed and must be approved by >Consortium members. The budgeting process will be somewhat lengthy in its >first year or two, but it should settle down thereafter. This also provides >for an openly competitive environment. Any organization wanting to enter >the open competition to become a Consortium subcontractor will be able to. >In this way, we will be able to foster an ecology around the decentralized >body of the Consortium. > sounds reasonable. >TIMING > >Without some sort of Consortium, VRML will be ripped apart by the tidal >forces now assaulting it. Time is of the essence, and, for this reason, >Consortium formation will be the focus of my own efforts in the immediate >future. My goal is to get enough consensus around the form of the >Consortium that the paperwork is merely the formalization of an agreement. >I would very much like to be able to make some sort of statement at >SIGGRAPH, where it could have a wide impact. But setting dates is putting >the cart before the horse; I am asking for your feedback - in fact, I am >blind without it. I believe that these proposals are rational and reasoned, >that they represent our best hope for a future that may remain chaotic but >will be equally fecund, and that you will, in your wisdom, respond to them >quickly and earnestly. > Agreed. It is time. Clay /------------------------------------/ Clay Graham Manager Virtual Reality Engineering BigBook Inc. 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 San Francisco CA, 94107 (415)284-9886x354 /-----------------------------------/ The consortium effort is publicly kicked off. Good job! Quick! we need more rebar & cement before we drive off the end of the bridge! (Can you see the other side, yet?) P.S. thanx for getting me to the solstice. It was cool on many, many levels. -- YON - Jan C. Hardenbergh <> jch@netscape.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge" A. Einstein Mark Pesce wrote: > > Rikk - > > Aren't you going to Japan as soon as I return? > (I read the 12th, I thought). I leave on Tuesday the 11th and return on the 27th. Looks like we are not going to overlap. I have nothing that cannot wait until then. (I was mostly interested in talking about incorporating the VAG - I meet with Law Venture Group on Monday. And, I wanted to brainstorm with you on what Gavin and I are doing.) What things did you want to talk about? Maybe we can do this by email...?... > Anyway, the ruckus with VRMLScript must be managed by SGI (as it is > their/your proposal). I no longer work at SGI, and wasn't asking for help (just fyi). -- Rikk Carey rikk@best.com (415)969-5910 VRML Enthusiast VRML info: http://www.sdsc.edu/vrml http://vrml.sgi.com/ Hi Mark, I am writing to show support for your work on the VRML Consortium. If you wish, you can use IBM's name as a potential corporate sponsor. We are more or less ready to join barring formalities & paperwork, whenever you are ready. IBM has no objections to you using the IBM name to lend your cause weight; in fact, we would encourage you to do this. Best of luck, --linas >Date: Mon, 03 Jun 96 10:45:05 -0500 >From: "Linas Vepstas" >To: , > , > , > , > >Subject: Re: VRML Consortium > > >Mark Pesce announced that he would have a consortium in place >"any day now" at the november 95 SDSC conference. He discussed >membership fees of roughly $50K for corporate sponsors. I tentatively >cleared this with Al Bunshaft, who said OK, but wanted to see the charter. >Mark did not have a charter ready at that time (feb 1996). When >he has incorporated, has bylaws, a charter, etc. then I see no reason >for not joining. I assume Al would still be interested in funding this, >but I think it would be good to check again. > >Don't know about Rikk Carey; I just noticed that his e-mail >bounced, with an automated message "Hi, I don't work for SGI anymore". >Also, Gavin Bell's mail bounced with a similar message. Hmmm. > >> Date: Sun, 02 Jun 96 20:19:21 >> From: >> To: "Vepstas, L. ", > "Scott H. Gordon ", > "Jarek Rossignac ", > "William P. Horn " >> Subject: VRML Consortium >> >> From: Wayne Jerves >> Subject: VRML Consortium >> I heard from a local source that Mark Pesce has >> talked about a VRML consortium being in place >> within 60 days. Know anything about this? I also >> heard that Rick has left SGI but promised to stay >> "inside the VAG"? >> >> Regards, Wayne >> Department L99 >> Tele: (408) 463-3079 TIE: 543-3079 >> > > Hi Jan, I think I dropped in on the middle of the conversation, so hit me if I'm covering old ground. >Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 15:41:41 -0700 >From: "YON - Jan C. Hardenbergh" >Reply-To: jch@netscape.com >To: Linas Vepstas >Subject: Re: Quips Custodi Ipse Custodes? > >Linus comments, most good, but: > >> Adoption of new technical specs. -- Every member gets one vote. A >> simple majority (50% or more votes passes). > >This needs to be higher, or by consensus. 50% does not a standard make. Well, lets put this to a vote: who wants what percentage? After all, everyone in the consortium will have to be happy with whatever this number is. >Source code: not for proposals, but for the standards. Nothing like >free source code to make something popular. Members of the conosrtium >would get early access to the source code - this would pool development >efforts of thornier pieces. This is trickier. -- if the goal is standards conformance, then (1) register a trademark for VRML (2) write a conformance test suite. Folks who don't pass 90% of the conformance suite can't legally call it "VRML". -- Source code projects are too easy to mismanage. They can spiral out of control. And what one group thinks is great is another person's junk. Even if its not total junk (i.e. it actually compiles on your box), it may perform like a dog, or otherwise be horrible, and would require major re-writes to be product quality. So stuff like this is all too easily of marginal utility. I'm not against it (I think Linux is way cool), but development projects can eat money so fast and give so little in return that a lot more thought & planning has to go into this. Detach the "source code" issue from the "consortium" issue, do the consrtium first, and then see if you still have energy to do source. (mentally, think "OSF" and it's great "successes". Who actually ships OSF/1? And why is Lesstif being developed, if you can get Motif by joining OSF?) >I believe the whole point of this early mail is to give us a heads up. >We should widen the circle as quickly as we can, but we can't do more >than >have warm fuzzies until people get draft contracts and say whether they >have the money. Whoa. I have at times been able to say formally that my company (IBM) can pledge money to join a VRML Consortium. But I know we couldn't begin to sign any contracts or pay out any money until an actual legal entity exists, with a charter, bylaws, taxpayer ID number, etc. etc. (1) a straw poll of who really thinks they really could join; re-run the poll, once a month. If 100 people say yes, then worry about widening the circle. if only 10 say yes, then don't worry. Do it. (2) Start drafting bylaws, charter. The bylaws would have to explain who custodes the quips, etc. Post the draft, open it for discussion. See if everyone will agree to it. At some point, I know my management will read this in detail, and so will our lawyers, and they WILL argue the fine points. And this will take months. And maybe they'll agree with it. And then we can cut a check for membership fees. So times a-wastin. Way back, a lot of people thought 3D on the net was cool, but until a spec existed, there wasn't but squat. Same here: a consortium might be cool, but till someone writes down the charter & bylaws, you've got squat. -- linas >-- >YON - Jan C. Hardenbergh, jch@netscape.com, www.netscape.com/people/jch >"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A. Einstein "Its 1% inspiration and 99% persperation." -- A. Einstein (the same). Sincerely, Linas Vepstas ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^ Linas Vepstas Graphics Architecture IBM RS/6000 Zip 4449 Tie Line: 678-1116 11400 Burnet Road External Phone: 1-(512)-838-1116 Austin TX 78758-4449 mail: linas@austin.ibm.com ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^ thanks. am swamped. may be a little bit before i can give this attention it deserves.... have forwarded to mike mccue as well Mark Pesce wrote: > > To all concerned - > > Over the last several months I have given out that the next logical point in > the growth and development of VRML is through the formation of a body which > acts to stabilize it. This body - hereafter referred to as the "Consortium" > would seek to reify the VRML community in four fundamental areas: > > 1) Standards and Specifications > > 2) Conformance and Compliance > > 3) Research and Development > > 4) Marketing and Education > > There seems to be little doubt that such an organization is needed. Indeed, > the recent tumult concerning VRMLScript and Java has proven the case > definitively. If no one is in control here - which is clearly and > persistently the case - we must at least have a locus, a central point to > which we can turn and return. > > That, at least, is the theory. > > On a personal note, several of you have noted that I've been withdrawing > from some of my VRML activities. I resigned as list moderator of www-vrml > (has this role been filled?), and have consistently taken actions designed > to limit my own power and influence. This has been interpreted variously - > that I've "grown tired" of VRML, or that I'm sick of the politics, or just > that I've gotten too famous (or weird, take your pick) to care about the > community. Just yesterday Gavin told me that, to all appearances, it seemed > as though I was looking for less responsibility. I replied that there are > two types of responsibilities: those which you possess of yourself, and > those which others impose on you. I told him that I was expanding the > former while dispensing with the latter - to the greatest possible degree. > > A lot of this has to do with my own motivations, which have very little to > do with either fame or money. But because those are the stated motivations > of many people actively involved in VRML - one sign of a healthy ecology, > even if I do not participate in those aspects of it - I am often considered > through that lens, one which obscures most of my being. > > My own goals for VRML are almost achieved; once VRML 2.0 has achieved a > widespread distribution, and as distributed simulation methodologies take > root, the soil will be fertile and ready for a new batch of seeds - and > these seeds are fractal fragments of the Gaian body. I envision a near > future where these seeds flower and become so ubiquitous that the > schoolchild in the twenty-first century thinks no more of it than they do a > textbook or a chalkboard. That is the next place I am going. > > My attitudes toward power have evolved remarkably in the last 30 months. > When I started, I wanted to rule the world (or at least cyberspace). Now I > couldn't care less - or, let me rephrase: I see power as a trap that must be > avoided, a lead weight which would carry me to the bottom of the whirlpool. > > The last two months have seen me in the ancient cities of Europe; Paris, > London, Florence, Madrid. I have been trying to grok European culture, > looking for an understanding of why civilizations rise and fall. VRML is an > emergent civilization - complete with the requisite language, customs and > culture - and if it is possible to understand how civilizations grow or die, > it might further be possible to transfer some of this wisdom to our efforts > in VRML. > > At the end of my searching, I came to a conclusion so simple that it is one > of the most common maxims in English: "Absolute power corrupts, > absolutely." But to this, add a corollary: all power is corruption, and > all of it must inevitably terminate in the ultimate of corruptions, death. > That death can be the surrender of power (in which case the power dies) or > the death of the person or organization which wields it. > > There doesn't seem to be any escape from this truth; in fact, it seems to be > one of the operating principles of the universe. Power is neither good nor > bad, but it has the inevitable tendency to attract corrupting influences - > influences which seek to be close to power in order to effect it. This > tendency seems to have the pattern of a structural coupling (in the usage > from informational biology) because as influences accrete, it is more likely > that more influences will accrete. Eventually the whole system goes into a > runaway-crash that precipitates its demise. Power is death; anything that > possesses power must die. > > That, anyway, is my own theory on such matters. Perhaps it makes my own > actions clearer; without power I am more able to pursue my own ends. > > Now I would like to contrast power with authority. Although our > civilization links the two quite closely, the original usage conveys quite a > different meaning. The Chinese sages, who wandered around the countryside > dispensing sacred wisdom and begging for their dinner, are representative of > "real" authority, derived from clarity of being rather than possession of power. > > I would like to think that my own accomplishments over the last three years > - and those of the VAG - have been based in authority, rather than power. > More and more, though, I see the natural inclination of authorities - in a > social ecology - is to transmute their authority into power. While this is > possible, it is not reversible; to become a power is to renounce one's > authority. > > This must not happen to VRML. Nothing would bring ruin to our collective > efforts more quickly than to turn VRML into a locus of power, for that would > quickly lead to a corrupting collapse. In the accelerated speeds associated > with proximity to the black hole of the Noosphere, it wouldn't take long at > all, perhaps less than 24 months. > > I should like to see VRML last for a decade or more, but to do this, it must > remain flexible, pliable, mutable. The reed that bends in the wind will not > be snapped in the storm; over and again VRML has surprised (and sometimes > delighted) its detractors by changing its own form, like a shape-shifter, > and adapting to the needs of some new task. > If we seek to reify VRML on a base of power, it will lose its flexibility. > > In order to avoid the reifications of power, I want to make a radical and > novel proposal: we must create the Consortium in such a way that it will not > become a locus of power, but rather would articulate the voice(s) of > authority. > > How is this possible? Look at the structures which power uses: hierarchy, > centrality, and surveillance. These are the "tools" of power, the ones > which the Consortium must avoid. > > The requirements of authority are dramatically different. The Druids - > occupying this role in the ancient Celtic lands - gave their requirements as > these: > > 1) Provided with sustenance wherever they might go; > 2) Forbidden that weapons be drawn in their presence; > 3) Judgements be honored above all others. > > The Druids were a nomadic priestly caste, much like the Chinese sages, and > these rules embody a natural form of authority - decentralized, non-violent, > and possessed of unquestionable integrity. I believe it is possible to > translate these ideals into modern forms, ones which would be appropriate to > the Consortium. > > That's a lot of buildup, but it really embraces the rationale behind the > following... > > A DECENTRALIZED BODY > > Paradoxically, a centralized Consortium is actually the greatest threat to > VRML. Any body which claimed to "own" VRML would, by its very existence, > strangle the micro-developmental ecology which has thus far been the sole > strength of VRML. While it may be appealing to have a "home" for VRML, we > must content ourselves to a multiplicity of homes - each with slightly > different dialects, customs and considerations - as the best insurance for a > solid future. Diversity - emergent in situations of decentralized > authority - is the essential element in any sustainable ecology. > > In practical terms, decentralization means that the "functions" of the > Consortium, as outlined at the beginning of this document, would be handled > in different ways, and by different - and sometimes competing - groups. > Let's now examine some specifics: > > Specifications and Standards > > Perhaps the finest example of a decentralized specification authority is the > Internet Engineering Task Force, or IETF. While it has come under fire of > late as increasingly ineffective, the model is still quite solid. We might > seek to formalize certain parliamentary practices (the IETF has very few of > these) in order to bring a certain stability to actions-of-the-group, but > beyond this, I believe that the IETF model most closely conforms to the > www-vrml/VAG model which has been successfully established. > > Therefore, I would suggest that the one of the Consortium's primary > responsibilities is to facilitate and arrange such meetings as will be > regularly required - inclusive of such cyberspace meeting places of www-vrml > and vrml.org. The execution of this task need not be resident in the body > of the Consortium (presuming that we want to avoid the formation of a body), > and could be farmed out to the W3C (for an appropriate fee, of course) or > even to the IETF itself, if either seemed interested. > > While a democracy is not strictly necessary in the specification process - > and may even act as an impediment to consensus - it seems reasonable that > their will be recognized "authorities", each with their own areas of > expertise. While we must not seek to formalize that authority - and thus > translate it into power - we must create a space in which it can be > expressed and codified into future specifications. > > Conformance and Compliance > > As important as specifications are to VRML, it is equally important to > ensure that products and services are conformant with it. In order to > create a developmental ecology - where implementations can compete on the > basis of quality and features - I recommend that we adopt a lenient > definition of compliance: implementations are allowed to exceed the > specification as long as they are compliant with it. > > Developing effective compliance tests is an expensive process. > Evidentially, the VRML community has already received an offer from the > National Institute of Standards and Technology to supply conformance tests. > That is excellent news, but I believe that harnessing the value of a > commercial ecology - one unconstrained by political vicissitudes - will, in > the long run, prove of greater value. > > [ This does not mean that I recommend that the NIST offer be rejected; > rather, I would have them work *with* commercial vendors to develop > conformance tests. ] > > There are several commercial organizations which specialize in conformance > testing; perhaps the most notable of these is X/Open, which provides the X > Window System conformance test suites for its clients. In conversations > that began at WWW5, X/Open was very receptive to the proposal that they > develop VRML 2.0 test suites as part of a Consortium effort. > > Research and Development > > Free source code is the backbone of the Internet - from the original CERN > Line-Mode browser code used to construct Labyrinth, to the QvLib VRML > parser, our entire field has consistently benefited from a wide range of > free tools. The future must be broad enough for a college undergraduate to > be able to prototype the next "insanely great" VRML application from an > assortment of freely available parts. These tools need not be of the > highest quality; it is enough that they are fully functional. > > That list of requisite tools is growing rapidly. Beyond the WWW libraries, > and the VRML 2.0 parser, there's also the binary format parser, a > Java/VRMLScript parser, renderers, and the framework of a simulation engine. > We've been lucky that the folks at NCSA and the University of Graz and SDSC > have been actively contributing to this effort; we need to support those > efforts, and, in the future facilitate them. > > I would suggest that these efforts be contained within a body or bodies > already engaged in similar types of work. Long ago, Tom Meyer suggested the > supercomputing consortium as a possible home for VRML; either that > organization or W3C itself could well serve as the focus for a continuing > research and development effort. > > Marketing and Education > > Finally, we come to the most visible face of the Consortium. Marketing > serves to get the word out about the availability and uses of VRML, > something that's sorely needed as people ask why they need a technology that > provides more than they know how to ask for. In this, the role of education > becomes clear: teach people how to ask. These tasks go hand in hand, and > have several forms; advertising, promotion, trade shows, conferences, and > seminars. > > Academic validation is necessary if VRML is to be expected to overflow the > industry and become a widespread field of research. However, there is no > outlet for papers dealing directly with VRML - so we must have regular > symposia, with published proceedings. This is necessary before we can > expect the services of legions of ambitious graduate students. > > All of this requires more organization than any of the other functions; > fortunately, several organizations have risen to the task. BAMTA has > volunteered to organize the next VRML symposium; indeed, they have received > the blessing of SDSC in their efforts. Similarly, I have been approached by > Miller Freeman who wish to organize a conference (and trade show, if that > makes sense) together with BAMTA. BAMTA's charter defines the organization > as primarily educational, so it could conceivably serve in both roles. > > Clearinghouse and Infrastructure > > Even in the best of all possible worlds, the Consortium will have some > modest infrastructure requirements. It will need to act as a clearing house > and directory, helping people locate the resources they need. This function > is all the more important in a radically decentralized organization. This > group will likely oversee membership and collect dues. > > It's probable that a small staff will need to be retained on a full-time > basis, as the custodians of the Consortium. Organic Online (through the > generosity of Brian Behlendorf) has promised to contribute office space, > etc., to the Consortium as it goes through its start-up phase, and, > possibly, for sometime into the future. > > MEMBERSHIP FEES > > I suggest that the Consortium follow the X Consortium model (which W3C has > adopted to its success) of charging membership fees of $50,000/year to > companies with revenues greater than $50,000,000/year, while charging a > $5,000/year membership to companies smaller than that. This keeps the > barriers to entry quite reasonable, while yielding as much as $500,000/year > in membership fees. > > BUDGETS > > All of the preceding is far from written in stone; indeed, to my knowledge > this is the first time that the proposals have been gathered together in a > single document. Each of these points are open for debate, discussion and > decision. And there are other open questions; the largest of these is how > do we fund a distributed, decentralized, competitive collection which > expresses the emergent functions of the Consortium? > > I proposal that all organizations wishing to serve as "subcontractors" are > required to file budgets which can be reviewed and must be approved by > Consortium members. The budgeting process will be somewhat lengthy in its > first year or two, but it should settle down thereafter. This also provides > for an openly competitive environment. Any organization wanting to enter > the open competition to become a Consortium subcontractor will be able to. > In this way, we will be able to foster an ecology around the decentralized > body of the Consortium. > > TIMING > > Without some sort of Consortium, VRML will be ripped apart by the tidal > forces now assaulting it. Time is of the essence, and, for this reason, > Consortium formation will be the focus of my own efforts in the immediate > future. My goal is to get enough consensus around the form of the > Consortium that the paperwork is merely the formalization of an agreement. > I would very much like to be able to make some sort of statement at > SIGGRAPH, where it could have a wide impact. But setting dates is putting > the cart before the horse; I am asking for your feedback - in fact, I am > blind without it. I believe that these proposals are rational and reasoned, > that they represent our best hope for a future that may remain chaotic but > will be equally fecund, and that you will, in your wisdom, respond to them > quickly and earnestly. > > Mark Pesce > VRML Architecture Group -- ********** Alex Edelstein Group Product Manager, Netscape Navigator Netscape Communications Corp. alexed@netscape.com NEW PHONE NUMBER: 415 937 2852 OK, what are you planning to have done by SIGGRAPH? 1) draft contracts, with enough positive feedback to know it will take off. 2) draft contracts out... 3) get a bunch of quotes from people. -- YON - Jan C. Hardenbergh, jch@netscape.com, www.netscape.com/people/jch "Imagination is more important than knowledge" A. Einstein Mark, Grayson here. Sorry we didn't get to meet last week. I'm traveling today but just got this and wanted to say that I think you pegged BAMTA right positioning us as having an interest in the Marketing and Education role. Looking forward to getting together and hearing about your feedback from this. Best regards, Gray Marketing and Education Finally, we come to the most visible face of the Consortium. Marketing serves to get the word out about the availability and uses of VRML, something that's sorely needed as people ask why they need a technology that provides more than they know how to ask for. In this, the role of education becomes clear: teach people how to ask. These tasks go hand in hand, and have several forms; advertising, promotion, trade shows, conferences, and seminars. Academic validation is necessary if VRML is to be expected to overflow the industry and become a widespread field of research. However, there is no outlet for papers dealing directly with VRML - so we must have regular symposia, with published proceedings. This is necessary before we can expect the services of legions of ambitious graduate students. All of this requires more organization than any of the other functions; fortunately, several organizations have risen to the task. BAMTA has volunteered to organize the next VRML symposium; indeed, they have received the blessing of SDSC in their efforts. Similarly, I have been approached by Miller Freeman who wish to organize a conference (and trade show, if that makes sense) together with BAMTA. BAMTA's charter defines the organization as primarily educational, so it could conceivably serve in both roles. To all concerned - Over the last several months I have given out that the next logical point in the growth and development of VRML is through the formation of a body which acts to stabilize it. This body - hereafter referred to as the "Consortium" would seek to reify the VRML community in four fundamental areas: 1) Standards and Specifications 2) Conformance and Compliance 3) Research and Development 4) Marketing and Education There seems to be little doubt that such an organization is needed. Indeed, the recent tumult concerning VRMLScript and Java has proven the case definitively. If no one is in control here - which is clearly and persistently the case - we must at least have a locus, a central point to which we can turn and return. That, at least, is the theory. On a personal note, several of you have noted that I've been withdrawing from some of my VRML activities. I resigned as list moderator of www-vrml (has this role been filled?), and have consistently taken actions designed to limit my own power and influence. This has been interpreted variously - that I've "grown tired" of VRML, or that I'm sick of the politics, or just that I've gotten too famous (or weird, take your pick) to care about the community. Just yesterday Gavin told me that, to all appearances, it seemed as though I was looking for less responsibility. I replied that there are two types of responsibilities: those which you possess of yourself, and those which others impose on you. I told him that I was expanding the former while dispensing with the latter - to the greatest possible degree. A lot of this has to do with my own motivations, which have very little to do with either fame or money. But because those are the stated motivations of many people actively involved in VRML - one sign of a healthy ecology, even if I do not participate in those aspects of it - I am often considered through that lens, one which obscures most of my being. My own goals for VRML are almost achieved; once VRML 2.0 has achieved a widespread distribution, and as distributed simulation methodologies take root, the soil will be fertile and ready for a new batch of seeds - and these seeds are fractal fragments of the Gaian body. I envision a near future where these seeds flower and become so ubiquitous that the schoolchild in the twenty-first century thinks no more of it than they do a textbook or a chalkboard. That is the next place I am going. My attitudes toward power have evolved remarkably in the last 30 months. When I started, I wanted to rule the world (or at least cyberspace). Now I couldn't care less - or, let me rephrase: I see power as a trap that must be avoided, a lead weight which would carry me to the bottom of the whirlpool. The last two months have seen me in the ancient cities of Europe; Paris, London, Florence, Madrid. I have been trying to grok European culture, looking for an understanding of why civilizations rise and fall. VRML is an emergent civilization - complete with the requisite language, customs and culture - and if it is possible to understand how civilizations grow or die, it might further be possible to transfer some of this wisdom to our efforts in VRML. At the end of my searching, I came to a conclusion so simple that it is one of the most common maxims in English: "Absolute power corrupts, absolutely." But to this, add a corollary: all power is corruption, and all of it must inevitably terminate in the ultimate of corruptions, death. That death can be the surrender of power (in which case the power dies) or the death of the person or organization which wields it. There doesn't seem to be any escape from this truth; in fact, it seems to be one of the operating principles of the universe. Power is neither good nor bad, but it has the inevitable tendency to attract corrupting influences - influences which seek to be close to power in order to effect it. This tendency seems to have the pattern of a structural coupling (in the usage from informational biology) because as influences accrete, it is more likely that more influences will accrete. Eventually the whole system goes into a runaway-crash that precipitates its demise. Power is death; anything that possesses power must die. That, anyway, is my own theory on such matters. Perhaps it makes my own actions clearer; without power I am more able to pursue my own ends. Now I would like to contrast power with authority. Although our civilization links the two quite closely, the original usage conveys quite a different meaning. The Chinese sages, who wandered around the countryside dispensing sacred wisdom and begging for their dinner, are representative of "real" authority, derived from clarity of being rather than possession of power. I would like to think that my own accomplishments over the last three years - and those of the VAG - have been based in authority, rather than power. More and more, though, I see the natural inclination of authorities - in a social ecology - is to transmute their authority into power. While this is possible, it is not reversible; to become a power is to renounce one's authority. This must not happen to VRML. Nothing would bring ruin to our collective efforts more quickly than to turn VRML into a locus of power, for that would quickly lead to a corrupting collapse. In the accelerated speeds associated with proximity to the black hole of the Noosphere, it wouldn't take long at all, perhaps less than 24 months. I should like to see VRML last for a decade or more, but to do this, it must remain flexible, pliable, mutable. The reed that bends in the wind will not be snapped in the storm; over and again VRML has surprised (and sometimes delighted) its detractors by changing its own form, like a shape-shifter, and adapting to the needs of some new task. If we seek to reify VRML on a base of power, it will lose its flexibility. In order to avoid the reifications of power, I want to make a radical and novel proposal: we must create the Consortium in such a way that it will not become a locus of power, but rather would articulate the voice(s) of authority. How is this possible? Look at the structures which power uses: hierarchy, centrality, and surveillance. These are the "tools" of power, the ones which the Consortium must avoid. The requirements of authority are dramatically different. The Druids - occupying this role in the ancient Celtic lands - gave their requirements as these: 1) Provided with sustenance wherever they might go; 2) Forbidden that weapons be drawn in their presence; 3) Judgements be honored above all others. The Druids were a nomadic priestly caste, much like the Chinese sages, and these rules embody a natural form of authority - decentralized, non-violent, and possessed of unquestionable integrity. I believe it is possible to translate these ideals into modern forms, ones which would be appropriate to the Consortium. That's a lot of buildup, but it really embraces the rationale behind the following... A DECENTRALIZED BODY Paradoxically, a centralized Consortium is actually the greatest threat to VRML. Any body which claimed to "own" VRML would, by its very existence, strangle the micro-developmental ecology which has thus far been the sole strength of VRML. While it may be appealing to have a "home" for VRML, we must content ourselves to a multiplicity of homes - each with slightly different dialects, customs and considerations - as the best insurance for a solid future. Diversity - emergent in situations of decentralized authority - is the essential element in any sustainable ecology. In practical terms, decentralization means that the "functions" of the Consortium, as outlined at the beginning of this document, would be handled in different ways, and by different - and sometimes competing - groups. Let's now examine some specifics: Specifications and Standards Perhaps the finest example of a decentralized specification authority is the Internet Engineering Task Force, or IETF. While it has come under fire of late as increasingly ineffective, the model is still quite solid. We might seek to formalize certain parliamentary practices (the IETF has very few of these) in order to bring a certain stability to actions-of-the-group, but beyond this, I believe that the IETF model most closely conforms to the www-vrml/VAG model which has been successfully established. Therefore, I would suggest that the one of the Consortium's primary responsibilities is to facilitate and arrange such meetings as will be regularly required - inclusive of such cyberspace meeting places of www-vrml and vrml.org. The execution of this task need not be resident in the body of the Consortium (presuming that we want to avoid the formation of a body), and could be farmed out to the W3C (for an appropriate fee, of course) or even to the IETF itself, if either seemed interested. While a democracy is not strictly necessary in the specification process - and may even act as an impediment to consensus - it seems reasonable that their will be recognized "authorities", each with their own areas of expertise. While we must not seek to formalize that authority - and thus translate it into power - we must create a space in which it can be expressed and codified into future specifications. Conformance and Compliance As important as specifications are to VRML, it is equally important to ensure that products and services are conformant with it. In order to create a developmental ecology - where implementations can compete on the basis of quality and features - I recommend that we adopt a lenient definition of compliance: implementations are allowed to exceed the specification as long as they are compliant with it. Developing effective compliance tests is an expensive process. Evidentially, the VRML community has already received an offer from the National Institute of Standards and Technology to supply conformance tests. That is excellent news, but I believe that harnessing the value of a commercial ecology - one unconstrained by political vicissitudes - will, in the long run, prove of greater value. [ This does not mean that I recommend that the NIST offer be rejected; rather, I would have them work *with* commercial vendors to develop conformance tests. ] There are several commercial organizations which specialize in conformance testing; perhaps the most notable of these is X/Open, which provides the X Window System conformance test suites for its clients. In conversations that began at WWW5, X/Open was very receptive to the proposal that they develop VRML 2.0 test suites as part of a Consortium effort. Research and Development Free source code is the backbone of the Internet - from the original CERN Line-Mode browser code used to construct Labyrinth, to the QvLib VRML parser, our entire field has consistently benefited from a wide range of free tools. The future must be broad enough for a college undergraduate to be able to prototype the next "insanely great" VRML application from an assortment of freely available parts. These tools need not be of the highest quality; it is enough that they are fully functional. That list of requisite tools is growing rapidly. Beyond the WWW libraries, and the VRML 2.0 parser, there's also the binary format parser, a Java/VRMLScript parser, renderers, and the framework of a simulation engine. We've been lucky that the folks at NCSA and the University of Graz and SDSC have been actively contributing to this effort; we need to support those efforts, and, in the future facilitate them. I would suggest that these efforts be contained within a body or bodies already engaged in similar types of work. Long ago, Tom Meyer suggested the supercomputing consortium as a possible home for VRML; either that organization or W3C itself could well serve as the focus for a continuing research and development effort. Marketing and Education Finally, we come to the most visible face of the Consortium. Marketing serves to get the word out about the availability and uses of VRML, something that's sorely needed as people ask why they need a technology that provides more than they know how to ask for. In this, the role of education becomes clear: teach people how to ask. These tasks go hand in hand, and have several forms; advertising, promotion, trade shows, conferences, and seminars. Academic validation is necessary if VRML is to be expected to overflow the industry and become a widespread field of research. However, there is no outlet for papers dealing directly with VRML - so we must have regular symposia, with published proceedings. This is necessary before we can expect the services of legions of ambitious graduate students. All of this requires more organization than any of the other functions; fortunately, several organizations have risen to the task. BAMTA has volunteered to organize the next VRML symposium; indeed, they have received the blessing of SDSC in their efforts. Similarly, I have been approached by Miller Freeman who wish to organize a conference (and trade show, if that makes sense) together with BAMTA. BAMTA's charter defines the organization as primarily educational, so it could conceivably serve in both roles. Clearinghouse and Infrastructure Even in the best of all possible worlds, the Consortium will have some modest infrastructure requirements. It will need to act as a clearing house and directory, helping people locate the resources they need. This function is all the more important in a radically decentralized organization. This group will likely oversee membership and collect dues. It's probable that a small staff will need to be retained on a full-time basis, as the custodians of the Consortium. Organic Online (through the generosity of Brian Behlendorf) has promised to contribute office space, etc., to the Consortium as it goes through its start-up phase, and, possibly, for sometime into the future. MEMBERSHIP FEES I suggest that the Consortium follow the X Consortium model (which W3C has adopted to its success) of charging membership fees of $50,000/year to companies with revenues greater than $50,000,000/year, while charging a $5,000/year membership to companies smaller than that. This keeps the barriers to entry quite reasonable, while yielding as much as $500,000/year in membership fees. BUDGETS All of the preceding is far from written in stone; indeed, to my knowledge this is the first time that the proposals have been gathered together in a single document. Each of these points are open for debate, discussion and decision. And there are other open questions; the largest of these is how do we fund a distributed, decentralized, competitive collection which expresses the emergent functions of the Consortium? I proposal that all organizations wishing to serve as "subcontractors" are required to file budgets which can be reviewed and must be approved by Consortium members. The budgeting process will be somewhat lengthy in its first year or two, but it should settle down thereafter. This also provides for an openly competitive environment. Any organization wanting to enter the open competition to become a Consortium subcontractor will be able to. In this way, we will be able to foster an ecology around the decentralized body of the Consortium. TIMING Without some sort of Consortium, VRML will be ripped apart by the tidal forces now assaulting it. Time is of the essence, and, for this reason, Consortium formation will be the focus of my own efforts in the immediate future. My goal is to get enough consensus around the form of the Consortium that the paperwork is merely the formalization of an agreement. I would very much like to be able to make some sort of statement at SIGGRAPH, where it could have a wide impact. But setting dates is putting the cart before the horse; I am asking for your feedback - in fact, I am blind without it. I believe that these proposals are rational and reasoned, that they represent our best hope for a future that may remain chaotic but will be equally fecund, and that you will, in your wisdom, respond to them quickly and earnestly. Mark Pesce VRML Architecture Group At 06:55 PM 6/27/96 -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote: >(1) a straw poll of who really thinks they really could join; > re-run the poll, once a month. If 100 people say yes, then worry > about widening the circle. if only 10 say yes, then don't worry. > Do it. Chaco would join at $5000. We need a mailing list for this group. Dan Greening, Ph.D. Chaco Communications, Inc. 10164 Parkwood Dr. Suite 8 greening@chaco.com 408-865-0657 fax 865-0571 Cupertino, CA 95014 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Create multimedia social spaces with Pueblo. http://www.chaco.com/pueblo/ "Dan R. Greening" wrote: >At 06:55 PM 6/27/96 -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote: >>(1) a straw poll of who really thinks they really could join; >> re-run the poll, once a month. If 100 people say yes, then worry >> about widening the circle. if only 10 say yes, then don't worry. >> Do it. > >Chaco would join at $5000. > >We need a mailing list for this group. I'm sure Brian or I could set it up on vag.vrml.org. That makes the most sense, I think. If not, we have the resources here to do it quickly as well. James -- James Waldrop / Technical Director sulam@construct.net / Construct Internet Design sulam@well.com / http://www.construct.net "[The Internet] allows the entire world to think and write like North Americans. This is the agenda of the Internet. It goes along with NAFTA." At 07:28 PM 7/1/96 -0700, Dan R. Greening wrote: >At 06:55 PM 6/27/96 -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote: >>(1) a straw poll of who really thinks they really could join; >> re-run the poll, once a month. If 100 people say yes, then worry >> about widening the circle. if only 10 say yes, then don't worry. >> Do it. > >Chaco would join at $5000. > > bigbook would join at 5k agreed mailing list Clay /------------------------------------/ Clay Graham Manager Virtual Reality Engineering BigBook Inc. 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 San Francisco CA, 94107 (415)284-9886x354 /-----------------------------------/ On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, James Waldrop wrote: > "Dan R. Greening" wrote: > >At 06:55 PM 6/27/96 -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote: > >>(1) a straw poll of who really thinks they really could join; > >> re-run the poll, once a month. If 100 people say yes, then worry > >> about widening the circle. if only 10 say yes, then don't worry. > >> Do it. > > > >Chaco would join at $5000. > > > >We need a mailing list for this group. > > I'm sure Brian or I could set it up on vag.vrml.org. That makes > the most sense, I think. If not, we have the resources here to > do it quickly as well. I'll do it tonight. Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- brian@organic.com www.apache.org hyperreal.com http://www.organic.com/JOBS jess@iiidns.iii.org.tw wrote: > > Hi,dear sir: > I am a VRML researcher in Taiwan. There're a lot of people want to > know the details about Virtual Reality and VRML, but there's no any good > chinese publications available in Taiwan right now.Beside this, the > appearance of the VRML 2.0 has expired those VR hackers that waiting > the 2.0 specifications for a long time. > > After a lot of studying and researching, I wtire a book about VRML > and Virtual Reality.I want to put your VRML 1.0 and VRML 2.0 draft > specification s as my appendix.I guess VRML specifications are > available for public domain. But I still want to get your allowance > or recommand for using them. Please give me a confirm for my issue. > Thanx a lot. > > Sincerely > JessWu > from Taiwan You have permission to re-print the VRML specs as long as you do the following: - include the URL for each document at the TOP of the re-print - clearly document the version numbers and dates of the versions that you are re-printing (e.g. VRML 1.0C, VRML Draft 2b, etc.). I recommend that you do not publish the VRML 2.0 spec until Draft 3 or FINAL draft. Otherwise, your publication will be OBSOLETE very soon. Note that Draft 3 will FREEZE the functionality of VRML... If you create a Chinese version of the spec on-line, please send us the URL and we will link to it! rc Hi,dear sir: I am a VRML researcher in Taiwan. There're a lot of people want to know the details about Virtual Reality and VRML, but there's no any good chinese publications available in Taiwan right now.Beside this, the appearance of the VRML 2.0 has expired those VR hackers that waiting the 2.0 specifications for a long time. After a lot of studying and researching, I wtire a book about VRML and Virtual Reality.I want to put your VRML 1.0 and VRML 2.0 draft specification s as my appendix.I guess VRML specifications are available for public domain. But I still want to get your allowance or recommand for using them. Please give me a confirm for my issue. Thanx a lot. Sincerely JessWu from Taiwan Dear VRMLers: Summary: We at NIST have started a project to develop test suites and/or tools to test conformance to VRML 2.0. Our objective is to complement work you may already be doing, perhaps working collaboratively. Any products produced would be made available on the WEB (free). The goal is to produce test suites and tools that would help developers and users ensure that products are built according to the VRML 2.0 specification. Interested? Read on.... My name is Lynne Rosenthal and I work at NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology: http://www.nist.gov/itl/div879/ctg/). We are interested in doing VRML conformance testing and are aware that there is work that has been developed for VRML 1.0. We would like to collaborate with interested parties in continuing this work for VRML 2.0. and producing a complete test suite for the specification. We would like to develop a VRML test suite to test the following for conformance to VRML 2.0: 1. VRML Web browsers (Interpreters); 2. VRML Authoring Toolkits (generators); 3. VRML files for conformance to the syntax of VRML 2.0. NIST wants to put this information out on the Web to assist users, browser developers and authoring tool developers in their work. NIST is interested in working with interested parties, and would like to collect and organize existing test files that have been developed. We would also like to go through the VRML 2.0 spec in detail to develop thorough and detailed tests that cover the standard in more depth in an organized fasion. You have been identified as a developer of testing of some sort and we are interested in working with you. We have reserved a meeting room at SIGGRAPH to get people together who are interested in testing and have done some work in this area thus far. We would very much like you to attend. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 3 from 6-8 p.m. in the Marriott in the Mardi Gras Ballroom in Salon C. Please respond if you will be able to attend the meeting. If you are unable to attend, please let me know if you are interested in being involved in the conformance testing of At 03:02 PM 6/27/96 +0900, Mark Pesce wrote: >... Again, I much prefer >X/Open to NIST for conformance tests, because a commercial organization has >a compelling reason to do things well, while a government organization >doesn't. (It's the libertarian in me, I guess.) And what about Black Sun, >OZ and other non-US companies? Will US resources be spent in their >conformance tests? I doubt it. FYI: NIST is an internationally recognized testing org - there is no issue w.r.t. globallness of NIST... Finding a commerical org to do this is problematic. They will want to be paid (well). It can get ugly. That's why I prefer NIST and the Consortium building these tests (the Consortium needs to own them and provide the official certification). rc -- Rikk Carey VRML Servant rikk@best.com 415-969-5910 VRML 2.0 Spec ----> http://vrml.sgi.com/moving-worlds (I was captured by space aliens and shipped to Washington DC to spend 4th of July with my inlaws this past weekend, sorry I didn't get to this sooner) Welcome to the "consort@vag.vrml.org" alias - it's not a proper majordomo-ized mailing yet but that is in its future. The roster includes the people cc'd on Mark's proposal and call for comments of two weeks ago, as well as the members of the VAG, who were also included in that message. The complete list is: alan.scott@virtus.com barrus@merl.com bblau@intervista.com brian@organic.com brutzman@cs.nps.navy.mil clay@bigbook.com dcolleen@planet9.com dcolleen@planet9.com frerichs@sgi.com gavin@acm.org gray@bamta.org greening@zuni.chaco.com jch@netscape.com jonmarb@microsoft.com linas@austin.ibm.com mitra@paragraph.com mmccue@paperinc.com mpesce@sirius.com pajamas@sirius.com rikk@best.com sulam@construct.net tchilds@well.com tparisi@intervista.com twm@cs.brown.edu watson@nas.nasa.gov wlm@netcom.com Talk amongst yourselves... topic for discussion... how many companies are interested in the $50,000 "Gold Club" membership plans. :) Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- brian@organic.com www.apache.org hyperreal.com http://www.organic.com/JOBS Dear VAG Participant: We at NIST have started a project to develop test suites and/or tools to test conformance to VRML 2.0. Our objective is to complement work that is already being done, perhaps working collaboratively. Any products produced would be made available on the WEB (free). The goal is to produce test suites and tools that would help developers and users ensure that products are built according to the VRML 2.0 specification. My name is Lynne Rosenthal and I work at NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology: http://www.nist.gov/itl/div879/ctg/). We are interested in doing VRML conformance testing and are aware that there is work that has been developed for VRML 1.0. We would like to collaborate with interested parties in continuing this work for VRML 2.0. and producing a complete test suite for the specification. We would like to develop a VRML test suite to test the following for conformance to VRML 2.0: 1. VRML Web browsers (Interpreters); 2. VRML Authoring Toolkits (generators); 3. VRML files for conformance to the syntax of VRML 2.0. NIST wants to put this information out on the Web to assist users, browser developers and authoring tool developers in their work. NIST is interested in working with interested parties, and would like to collect and organize existing test files that have been developed. We would also like to go through the VRML 2.0 spec in detail to develop thorough and detailed tests that cover the standard in more depth in organized fashion. We have identified developers of testing in the VRML arena and are interested in collaborating in this area. We have reserved a meeting room at SIGGRAPH to get people together who are interested in testing and have done work in this area thus far. The meeting is currently scheduled for Tuesday, August 3 from 6 - 8 p.m. in the Marriott in the Mardi Gras Ballroom in Salon C. There is the possibility that the time will be changed to 5-7 p.m. to avoid conflict with other VRML meetings. Please respond if you will be able to attend the meeting. If you are unable to attend, please let me know if you are interested in being involved in the conformance testing of VRML. Also, check out our VRML testing project on the Web at http://www.nist.gov/itl/div879/ctg/vrml/vrml.htm. Thank you in advance for your time and effort. Regards - Lynne Lynne Rosenthal NIST Room 562, Building 820 Gaithersburg, MD 20899 (301)975-3353, fax (301)948-6312 lsr@nist.gov Am faxing, just got busy signal, but machine will retry till it gets through. --linas >Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 02:03:14 +0900 >To: linas@austin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas) >From: Mark Pesce >Subject: Re: Power, Persistence and Consortia > >Linas - > >Again your points are true and well made...I never understood the GNU >agreements either, but then I'm not a lawyer... > >Yes, the Open GL ARB agreements will help very much. I will send you my fax >number next week when I get back to the US and turn the computer on... :-) > >Actually, it's 415.621.0176, but it won't work till Monday. Please send it >then if you could... > >Mark (Tokyo) > >At 11:25 AM 6/28/96 -0500, you wrote: >> >>Hi Mark, >> >>A couple more quick remarks. >> >>>Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 17:48:05 +0900 >>>To: linas@austin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas) >>>From: Mark Pesce >>>Subject: Re: Power, Persistence and Consortia >>> >>>Linas - >>> >>>All of your points are true & well taken. It will all be legal and tight - >> >>Note that "legal" is a very squishy thing. The big question is not >>"will there be legal language", but "will the legal language say >>things we agree to". >> >>If you just want legal language, you go to the bookstore, buy "how to >>form your own corporation", and copy the bylaws out of the back. >> >>What I'm urging is a plain-english document that explains >>-- how to join -- is membership open to all? is it by invitation only? >> How many companies can I invite per year? Is "big six" really six, or >> can it be 7, 8, 9, 15, 20? Can it be 3? If drops by attrition to >> only 3, will the consortium be automatically dissolved, or does it >> get to live? >> >>-- relationship of steering committe (if any) to working subgroups. >>-- how to join steering committe. >>-- how to get kicked off of sterring comittee (e.g. for OpenGL, >> failing to attend 4 meetings in a row was grounds for calling >> a vote to kick you off.). Does this need 75% of vote? >>-- how many representatives per member may attend? Are non-members >> allowed to observe? Maybe non-members can be active in subgroups, >> but are barred from the room during steering comittee meetings. >>-- will consortium have the legal right to use any & all documentation >> in any way that it wishes, including rights to re-publish, >> re-license, etc? Will only members have access to specs, or will >> the general public? >>-- Will the consortium demand that new member sign & adhere to >> non-disclosure agreements? Or will these not be required? >> >> >> (For example .. look at netscape html extensions. It is not clear >> if these are in public domain, or not. If IBM built a browser >> that supported netscape html extensions, does netscape have grounds >> to sue? You want to make sure that the consortium either owns the >> specs, or has the right to grant others the right to code to the >> specs. I can't afford to figure out the legal status of each new >> document I get; sign yet another agreement for each new document, >> etc.. There has to be a blanket agreement. >> >> You also want to keep it simple. For example, IBM is scared of >> GNU GPL not because its free, but because its so long and >> convoluted that the IBM lawyers can't figure out what it's >> really saying. Sadly, as a result, I can't touch GNU code. >> >> >>Once you get potential members agreeing to the above, then you hand it >>to the lawyers and they cross-compile it into legalese. They'll also >>issue compiler errors -- they'll tell you if we are attempting anything >>illegal. >> >>If it helps, I can fax you the OpenGL Architecture Board Membership >>Agreement and Bylaws. Its six pages long. Note the ARB is NOT a >>corporataion, and does not have the right to handle money. It does >>legally control the specs, and some source code. It does not pay >>salaries. >> >>--linas >> >>>because SGI and Apple will require it, too - and will conform (at the >>>minimum) to your suggestions. >>> >>>More as follows; thanks for the most excellent comments. >>> >>>Mark >> >>P.S. I think I can renew a pledge of membership dues. Although the >>person who originally made the pledges is gone, I found two other >>people who have cash and the right to spend it. One of them is from >>IBM Digitial Library, the folks who made the big splash about VRML+ >>at siggraph last year. If you want a more formal pledge, or to talk to >>them, let me know. >> >>--linas >> >>P.P.S. Note that loaning or giving away (old) hardware is usually/always >>easier than giving money. >> >> >> >--- >Mark Pesce * mpesce@netcom.com >http://www.hyperreal.com/~mpesce/ > >"Why not?" - Dr. Timothy Leary (1921 - 1996) > > > > Roland van der Meer is a VC with Partech (or something like that). He is involved with Axial Systems. He has experience in setting up a consortium and has offered his help. We have tentaively arranged to meet THIS monday at 3pm in San Francisco (us 3). Can you make it? I believe that he can be VERY helpful. Furthermore, there's an idea that we are kicking around that could help VRML be really successful (ref implementation). He's at 50 California, 33rd floor. Please let us know asap. Roland's email is: roland@partechss.com. His phone number is 788-2929. Thanx, rc -- Rikk Carey VRML Servant rikk@best.com 415-969-5910 VRML 2.0 Spec ----> http://vrml.sgi.com/moving-worlds Mark - Great. Look forward to hearing from you. We will also be at SIGGRAPH and perhaps can talk there. I know schedules will be tight - there is much VRML related activities to fill the week. We are are putting some of our ideas down on paper and our WWW site. I'll let you know when the URL is available. We are very much interested in developing a testing strategy in an open manner, collaborating and making whatever is developed available to anyone who wants to use it. In short, we at NIST, hope to add value by working with you and others in the VRML community to develop conformance tests and tools that can help regards Lynne At 10:04 AM 7/9/96 -0700, you wrote: >Lynne - > >Hi - Mark Pesce of the VAG here. Thanks for your informative email; I'll be >back to you in a week or so to discuss further the implications of >NIST-developed conformance and test suites. They fit in very nicely with >our plans for a VRML consortium and we'd like to inform you of those plans. > >Until then, > >Mark > >At 11:14 AM 7/8/96 -0400, you wrote: >>Dear VAG Participant: >> >>We at NIST have started a project to develop test suites and/or >>tools to test conformance to VRML 2.0. Our objective is to complement work >>that is already being done, perhaps working collaboratively. Any products >>produced would be made available on the WEB (free). The goal is to produce >>test suites and tools that would help developers and users ensure that >>products are built according to the VRML 2.0 specification. >> >>My name is Lynne Rosenthal and I work at NIST (National Institute of >>Standards and Technology: http://www.nist.gov/itl/div879/ctg/). We are >>interested in doing VRML conformance testing and are aware that there is >>work that has been developed for VRML 1.0. We would like to collaborate >>with interested parties in continuing this work for VRML 2.0. and producing >>a complete test suite for the specification. >> >>We would like to develop a VRML test suite to test the following for >>conformance to VRML 2.0: >> >>1. VRML Web browsers (Interpreters); >>2. VRML Authoring Toolkits (generators); >>3. VRML files for conformance to the syntax of VRML 2.0. >> >>NIST wants to put this information out on the Web to assist users, browser >>developers and authoring tool developers in their work. >> >>NIST is interested in working with interested parties, and would like to >>collect and organize existing test files that have been developed. >>We would also like to go through the VRML 2.0 spec in detail to develop >>thorough and detailed tests that cover the standard in more depth in >>organized fashion. >> >>We have identified developers of testing in the VRML arena and >>are interested in collaborating in this area. We have reserved >>a meeting room at SIGGRAPH to get people together who are interested >>in testing and have done work in this area thus far. The meeting >>is currently scheduled for Tuesday, August 3 from 6 - 8 p.m. >>in the Marriott in the Mardi Gras Ballroom in Salon C. There is >>the possibility that the time will be changed to 5-7 p.m. to avoid >>conflict with other VRML meetings. >> >>Please respond if you will be able to attend the meeting. If you are unable >>to attend, please let me know if you are interested in >>being involved in the conformance testing of VRML. >> >>Also, check out our VRML testing project on the Web at >>http://www.nist.gov/itl/div879/ctg/vrml/vrml.htm. >> >>Thank you in advance for your time and effort. >> >> >>Regards - >>Lynne >> >> >>Lynne Rosenthal >>NIST >>Room 562, Building 820 >>Gaithersburg, MD 20899 >>(301)975-3353, fax (301)948-6312 >>lsr@nist.gov >> >> >> >> >> >> > >----- >mpesce@netcom.com * http://www.hyperreal.com/~mpesce >mpesce@xs4all.nl * http://xs4all.nl/~mpesce (from Europe) > >"Coming to know the hidden and forgotten Mother and the marvelous wisdom of >the sacred feminine as revealed from every side and angle by the different >mystical traditions is not a luxury; it is, I believe, a necessity for our >survival as a species." - Andrew Harvey > > > Rikk, your detailed review of the standardization situation is helpful. Thanks for filling in knowledge gaps and correcting some of my mistaken conclusions. If any of my comments seemed like personal criticisms, towards you or others, that was not intended and I apologize. The main thing grinding me is a belief that choice of a partner standards organization is an integral part of whether the standard (and long-term standards-making process) is effective. Perhaps a future appendix which explains the relationship between ISO and VRML is a good way to document the facts. If so, I am willing to work to help produce something like that. Your patience with this sideshow while in the midst of the real spec work is appreciated. all the best, Don -- Don Brutzman Naval Postgraduate School, Code UW/Br Root 200 work 408.656.2149 Monterey California 93943-5000 USA fax 408.656.3679 Virtual worlds/underwater robots/Internet http://www.stl.nps.navy.mil/~brutzman >I assume that you are on the consort@vag.vrml.org mailing list, right? Probably as jch@netscape - I thought vag@vag.vrml.org would have been on it? Well, gee, maybe that explains a lot of feeling left out! Is there a way to auto-enroll jch@jch.com? I don't do root on kether. >Do you have a specific suggestion? e.g. the VAG starts the consort, etc... Having missed what I assume is a very fruitful consort discussion, no, but I believe that it sort of worked, but, we could have used people who had more time and energy. So, the VAG should regenerate - perhaps exist officially only a small meetings. YON - Jan C. Hardenbergh - http://www.jch.com/~jch jch@jch.com aka jch@{netscape, ultranet, world.std}.com "Only the real world is so unreal" Tracy Bonham - 1996 At 11:24 AM 7/14/96 -0700, you wrote: >Later on Monday would be excellent; I just don't want to rush the Axial meeting. Ok, I have left messages with John Ison and Roland van der Meer suggesting that they choose a time (e.g. 5:30 or 6). I will block out this time and hopefully see you at Axial. Otherwise, we can try some other time. Rikk -- Rikk Carey VRML Servant rikk@best.com 415-969-5910 VRML 2.0 Spec ----> http://vrml.sgi.com/moving-worlds Private: fyi: I received a rather whiny and complaining message from Linas at IBM. He is quite angry about something. I think it's because he and IBM didn't expect VRML to be as successful as it is, and are pissed that they don't have more control or influence over it. Or they are just pissed that a bunch of mishaps like the VAG could get this far w/o rules of order and bylaws. In any case, I told him to quit whining and start participating. And, that the VAG recognized the need for a VRML Consortium two years ago. It's now is the time to do something about it. It's all part of a very well-crafted plan...hee-hee...hee-hee... Also, I will not put up with people stereotyping the ISO members. [I can make jokes about how boring they are, but nobody else! :) ] But seriously, I have received a few messages of the type "ISO is a bunch of losers and aholes". I have responded strongly to each person: "Stereotyping and labelling people was bad in Kindergarten and is worse as grown-ups. Stop it." I ask you guys to also support ISO OR come up with a new plan fast. Toodles, rc -- Rikk Carey VRML Servant rikk@best.com 415-969-5910 VRML 2.0 Spec ----> http://vrml.sgi.com/moving-worlds Hi Don, My mail here has been less than reliable, so it is possible this got zapped in the ether, but ... you seem to be refering to some mail which I don't think I got ?? I do not recall seeing, nor can I find, a "detailed review of the standardization situation." Was this a piece of mail sent on this list, or is this a web page I haven't seen yet? --------------- I would like to remind everyone on this group that while I would like to see IBM join the consortium, I cannot move forward on this without a clear, written, agreed-upon statement about what the consortium would hope to accomplish. (Call press conferences? Control Specs? Write code? Trademark, and "vigorously defend" the VRML trademark? Teach high-school kids about 3D? Give away lapel buttons at siggraph? All, none, some of the above?) In particular, I can state that there is a snow=balls chance in hell that my company would join without getting an official copy of a Charter/Statement of Purpose and Bylaws. I would be very surprised if this was not the case for the other (large) corporations, like SGI & Microsoft. I received a surprising personal comminique that seemed to state that the consortium was somehow "obvious", and all I have to do is ask. Does everyone here agree on what they think the Consortium will do, and what they will get out of it? Is there mail or a web site that I am missing? --linas >From: brutzman@cs.nps.navy.mil (Don Brutzman) >Subject: Re: VRML Consortium mailing list established/ISO >To: rikk@best.com (Rikk Carey) >Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 20:48:35 -0700 (PDT) > >Rikk, your detailed review of the standardization situation is helpful. >Thanks for filling in knowledge gaps and correcting some of my mistaken >conclusions. If any of my comments seemed like personal criticisms, >towards you or others, that was not intended and I apologize. > >The main thing grinding me is a belief that choice of a partner standards >organization is an integral part of whether the standard (and long-term >standards-making process) is effective. Perhaps a future appendix which >explains the relationship between ISO and VRML is a good way to document >the facts. If so, I am willing to work to help produce something like that. > >Your patience with this sideshow while in the midst of the real spec work >is appreciated. > >all the best, Don >-- >Don Brutzman Naval Postgraduate School, Code UW/Br Root 200 work 408.656.2149 > Monterey California 93943-5000 USA fax 408.656.3679 >Virtual worlds/underwater robots/Internet http://www.stl.nps.navy.mil/~brutzman > Gentz - After Brian's incredibly premature email about membership on the consortium BOD, I've realized that several of you are *already* jockeying for the power positions in the consortium. Despite my own efforts to illuminate the futility and actual detriment of such roles... Let me make something clear: I do not want a role in the consortium. (That's right, Rikk, take me off list of pre-subscribed BOD members...) You are free to do as you will. However, it is putting the cart *far* before the horse to design a preliminary board of directors (with power positions for all and sundry) before there is a consortium. If I do my job well, there will be *no need* for anyone in that role. Mark ----- mpesce@netcom.com * http://www.hyperreal.com/~mpesce mpesce@xs4all.nl * http://xs4all.nl/~mpesce (from Europe) "Coming to know the hidden and forgotten Mother and the marvelous wisdom of the sacred feminine as revealed from every side and angle by the different mystical traditions is not a luxury; it is, I believe, a necessity for our survival as a species." - Andrew Harvey Mark - Unfortunately, I arrive on Monday, before noon. I'll be there till Thursday. Any chance to meet briefly - for example, Monday. Several of us (my boss, and the project leader, Mary Brady) will be there. Our schedules are pretty flexible. Or perhaps Tuesday, prior to the BOF at 6:00, we have the VRML conformance test meeting originally scheduled for 6, but, we are rescheduling it to 5-7, so it doesn't overlap the entire BOF. The Conformance Test meeting, is basically to meet with people interested in testing, introduce ourselves, and talk abit about the effort and how to proceed - working together. Although I would like to meet and talk, I'm sure our paths will cross during the week. At the very least, I'll seek you out and introduce myself. Lynne At 11:25 AM 7/9/96 -0700, you wrote: >Lynne - > >Will you be in New Orleans and settled by Sunday? If so, we could >definitely meet sometime that day. It's before most of the VRML activities >begin, so I'm working to schedule VAG/Consortium meetings on that day... > >Mark > >At 02:28 PM 7/9/96 -0400, you wrote: >>Mark - >>Great. Look forward to hearing from you. >> >> We will also be at SIGGRAPH and perhaps can talk there. I know schedules >>will be tight - there is much VRML related activities to fill the week. >> >>We are are putting some of our ideas down on paper and our WWW site. I'll >>let you know when the URL is available. We are very much interested in >>developing a testing strategy in an open manner, collaborating and making >>whatever is developed available to anyone who wants to use it. In short, we >>at NIST, hope to add value by working with you and others in the VRML >>community to develop conformance tests and tools that can help >> >>regards >>Lynne >> >> >> >>At 10:04 AM 7/9/96 -0700, you wrote: >>>Lynne - >>> >>>Hi - Mark Pesce of the VAG here. Thanks for your informative email; I'll be >>>back to you in a week or so to discuss further the implications of >>>NIST-developed conformance and test suites. They fit in very nicely with >>>our plans for a VRML consortium and we'd like to inform you of those plans. >>> >>>Until then, >>> >>>Mark >>> >>>At 11:14 AM 7/8/96 -0400, you wrote: >>>>Dear VAG Participant: >>>> >>>>We at NIST have started a project to develop test suites and/or >>>>tools to test conformance to VRML 2.0. Our objective is to complement work >>>>that is already being done, perhaps working collaboratively. Any products >>>>produced would be made available on the WEB (free). The goal is to produce >>>>test suites and tools that would help developers and users ensure that >>>>products are built according to the VRML 2.0 specification. >>>> >>>>My name is Lynne Rosenthal and I work at NIST (National Institute of >>>>Standards and Technology: http://www.nist.gov/itl/div879/ctg/). We are >>>>interested in doing VRML conformance testing and are aware that there is >>>>work that has been developed for VRML 1.0. We would like to collaborate >>>>with interested parties in continuing this work for VRML 2.0. and producing >>>>a complete test suite for the specification. >>>> >>>>We would like to develop a VRML test suite to test the following for >>>>conformance to VRML 2.0: >>>> >>>>1. VRML Web browsers (Interpreters); >>>>2. VRML Authoring Toolkits (generators); >>>>3. VRML files for conformance to the syntax of VRML 2.0. >>>> >>>>NIST wants to put this information out on the Web to assist users, browser >>>>developers and authoring tool developers in their work. >>>> >>>>NIST is interested in working with interested parties, and would like to >>>>collect and organize existing test files that have been developed. >>>>We would also like to go through the VRML 2.0 spec in detail to develop >>>>thorough and detailed tests that cover the standard in more depth in >>>>organized fashion. >>>> >>>>We have identified developers of testing in the VRML arena and >>>>are interested in collaborating in this area. We have reserved >>>>a meeting room at SIGGRAPH to get people together who are interested >>>>in testing and have done work in this area thus far. The meeting >>>>is currently scheduled for Tuesday, August 3 from 6 - 8 p.m. >>>>in the Marriott in the Mardi Gras Ballroom in Salon C. There is >>>>the possibility that the time will be changed to 5-7 p.m. to avoid >>>>conflict with other VRML meetings. >>>> >>>>Please respond if you will be able to attend the meeting. If you are unable >>>>to attend, please let me know if you are interested in >>>>being involved in the conformance testing of VRML. >>>> >>>>Also, check out our VRML testing project on the Web at >>>>http://www.nist.gov/itl/div879/ctg/vrml/vrml.htm. >>>> >>>>Thank you in advance for your time and effort. >>>> >>>> >>>>Regards - >>>>Lynne >>>> >>>> >>>>Lynne Rosenthal >>>>NIST >>>>Room 562, Building 820 >>>>Gaithersburg, MD 20899 >>>>(301)975-3353, fax (301)948-6312 >>>>lsr@nist.gov >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>----- >>>mpesce@netcom.com * http://www.hyperreal.com/~mpesce >>>mpesce@xs4all.nl * http://xs4all.nl/~mpesce (from Europe) >>> >>>"Coming to know the hidden and forgotten Mother and the marvelous wisdom of >>>the sacred feminine as revealed from every side and angle by the different >>>mystical traditions is not a luxury; it is, I believe, a necessity for our >>>survival as a species." - Andrew Harvey >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >----- >mpesce@netcom.com * http://www.hyperreal.com/~mpesce >mpesce@xs4all.nl * http://xs4all.nl/~mpesce (from Europe) > >"Coming to know the hidden and forgotten Mother and the marvelous wisdom of >the sacred feminine as revealed from every side and angle by the different >mystical traditions is not a luxury; it is, I believe, a necessity for our >survival as a species." - Andrew Harvey > > > I would like to recommend Kate Seekings for a position on the VRML consortium. I don't know who you would like from Microsoft, but she is certainly *very* qualified and comes with my highest recommendation. Her email address is kates@microsoft.com Karl Fine. Come to reception (408-562-7888) on second floor of the left building. -Gray At 03:16 PM 7/16/96 -0700, you wrote: >I will come down. How is 10 AM? > Mark, I would like to start off by saying it was a pleasure to meet you when you were visiting the Live3D group at Netscape. After reading your first book, it was a treat to see the man responsible. I've heard you talk about the Consortia, and I have since read your ideas on the subject. Once again I would like to extend a hand to you. I am willing to help you in any way that I can. Perhaps I can aid you best in the Marketing/Education arena. Please let me know how I can help further this idea. lea -- ******************************** Lea Lucente Technical Evangelist - Live3D Netscape Communications Corp. mailto:leal@netscape.com (415) 937-3592 ******************************** attempted resend 2:30 central time (12:30 california time) got no answer; fax machine will auto retry every 5-10 minutes. --linas > Linas - > > Was a bad boy and left the internet link up all day. Could you send it > after 2 PM Texas time when I am sure the line will be free? > > Mark > > At 11:30 AM 7/8/96 -0500, you wrote: > >Am faxing, just got busy signal, but machine will > >retry till it gets through. > > > >--linas > > > >>Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 02:03:14 +0900 > >>To: linas@austin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas) > >>From: Mark Pesce > >>Subject: Re: Power, Persistence and Consortia > >> > >>Linas - > >> > >>Again your points are true and well made...I never understood the GNU > >>agreements either, but then I'm not a lawyer... > >> > >>Yes, the Open GL ARB agreements will help very much. I will send you my fax > >>number next week when I get back to the US and turn the computer on... :-) > >> > >>Actually, it's 415.621.0176, but it won't work till Monday. Please send it > >>then if you could... > >> > >>Mark (Tokyo) > >> > >>At 11:25 AM 6/28/96 -0500, you wrote: > >>> > >>>Hi Mark, > >>> > >>>A couple more quick remarks. > >>> > >>>>Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 17:48:05 +0900 > >>>>To: linas@austin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas) > >>>>From: Mark Pesce > >>>>Subject: Re: Power, Persistence and Consortia > >>>> > >>>>Linas - > >>>> > >>>>All of your points are true & well taken. It will all be legal and tight - > >>> > >>>Note that "legal" is a very squishy thing. The big question is not > >>>"will there be legal language", but "will the legal language say > >>>things we agree to". > >>> > >>>If you just want legal language, you go to the bookstore, buy "how to > >>>form your own corporation", and copy the bylaws out of the back. > >>> > >>>What I'm urging is a plain-english document that explains > >>>-- how to join -- is membership open to all? is it by invitation only? > >>> How many companies can I invite per year? Is "big six" really six, or > >>> can it be 7, 8, 9, 15, 20? Can it be 3? If drops by attrition to > >>> only 3, will the consortium be automatically dissolved, or does it > >>> get to live? > >>> > >>>-- relationship of steering committe (if any) to working subgroups. > >>>-- how to join steering committe. > >>>-- how to get kicked off of sterring comittee (e.g. for OpenGL, > >>> failing to attend 4 meetings in a row was grounds for calling > >>> a vote to kick you off.). Does this need 75% of vote? > >>>-- how many representatives per member may attend? Are non-members > >>> allowed to observe? Maybe non-members can be active in subgroups, > >>> but are barred from the room during steering comittee meetings. > >>>-- will consortium have the legal right to use any & all documentation > >>> in any way that it wishes, including rights to re-publish, > >>> re-license, etc? Will only members have access to specs, or will > >>> the general public? > >>>-- Will the consortium demand that new member sign & adhere to > >>> non-disclosure agreements? Or will these not be required? > >>> > >>> > >>> (For example .. look at netscape html extensions. It is not clear > >>> if these are in public domain, or not. If IBM built a browser > >>> that supported netscape html extensions, does netscape have grounds > >>> to sue? You want to make sure that the consortium either owns the > >>> specs, or has the right to grant others the right to code to the > >>> specs. I can't afford to figure out the legal status of each new > >>> document I get; sign yet another agreement for each new document, > >>> etc.. There has to be a blanket agreement. > >>> > >>> You also want to keep it simple. For example, IBM is scared of > >>> GNU GPL not because its free, but because its so long and > >>> convoluted that the IBM lawyers can't figure out what it's > >>> really saying. Sadly, as a result, I can't touch GNU code. > >>> > >>> > >>>Once you get potential members agreeing to the above, then you hand it > >>>to the lawyers and they cross-compile it into legalese. They'll also > >>>issue compiler errors -- they'll tell you if we are attempting anything > >>>illegal. > >>> > >>>If it helps, I can fax you the OpenGL Architecture Board Membership > >>>Agreement and Bylaws. Its six pages long. Note the ARB is NOT a > >>>corporataion, and does not have the right to handle money. It does > >>>legally control the specs, and some source code. It does not pay > >>>salaries. > >>> > >>>--linas > >>> > >>>>because SGI and Apple will require it, too - and will conform (at the > >>>>minimum) to your suggestions. > >>>> > >>>>More as follows; thanks for the most excellent comments. > >>>> > >>>>Mark > >>> > >>>P.S. I think I can renew a pledge of membership dues. Although the > >>>person who originally made the pledges is gone, I found two other > >>>people who have cash and the right to spend it. One of them is from > >>>IBM Digitial Library, the folks who made the big splash about VRML+ > >>>at siggraph last year. If you want a more formal pledge, or to talk to > >>>them, let me know. > >>> > >>>--linas > >>> > >>>P.P.S. Note that loaning or giving away (old) hardware is usually/always > >>>easier than giving money. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>--- > >>Mark Pesce * mpesce@netcom.com > >>http://www.hyperreal.com/~mpesce/ > >> > >>"Why not?" - Dr. Timothy Leary (1921 - 1996) > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > ----- > mpesce@netcom.com * http://www.hyperreal.com/~mpesce > mpesce@xs4all.nl * http://xs4all.nl/~mpesce (from Europe) > > "Coming to know the hidden and forgotten Mother and the marvelous wisdom of > the sacred feminine as revealed from every side and angle by the different > mystical traditions is not a luxury; it is, I believe, a necessity for our > survival as a species." - Andrew Harvey > > On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, Mark Pesce wrote: > After Brian's incredibly premature email about membership on the consortium > BOD, Eh? I missed something... Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- brian@organic.com www.apache.org hyperreal.com http://www.organic.com/JOBS On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, Mark Pesce wrote: > After Brian's incredibly premature email about membership on the consortium > BOD, Eh? I missed something... Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- brian@organic.com www.apache.org hyperreal.com http://www.organic.com/JOBS Mark, I hope you wern't refering to me? The email I sent you was for you, Rikk, Gavin and Tony and was totally based on the provate conversations we all had yesterday. The only thing I was doing was repeating what everyone had said yesterday and was not really adding anything new. Rikk asked me to recap the conversation and to send to the small group. I hope you didn't do anything rash like send that out to more people? Brian > Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 13:36:55 -0700 > To: consort@vag.vrml.org > From: Mark Pesce > Subject: Preaching to the unconverted. > Gentz - > > After Brian's incredibly premature email about membership on the consortium > BOD, I've realized that several of you are *already* jockeying for the power > positions in the consortium. Despite my own efforts to illuminate the > futility and actual detriment of such roles... > > Let me make something clear: I do not want a role in the consortium. > (That's right, Rikk, take me off list of pre-subscribed BOD members...) > > You are free to do as you will. > > However, it is putting the cart *far* before the horse to design a > preliminary board of directors (with power positions for all and sundry) > before there is a consortium. If I do my job well, there will be *no need* > for anyone in that role. > > Mark > > ----- > mpesce@netcom.com * http://www.hyperreal.com/~mpesce > mpesce@xs4all.nl * http://xs4all.nl/~mpesce (from Europe) > > "Coming to know the hidden and forgotten Mother and the marvelous wisdom of > the sacred feminine as revealed from every side and angle by the different > mystical traditions is not a luxury; it is, I believe, a necessity for our > survival as a species." - Andrew Harvey > > > * brian blau * intervista software * digital bayou siggraph96 * * blau@intervista.com * http://www.intervista.com * 415.434.8765 * * bayou.s96@siggraph.org * http://www.siggraph.org/conferences/siggraph96 * Papa Legba lives! Come see the gang from NYU Media Research Lab and their Legba avatar from 6:00 to 8:00pm on Sunday evening August 4th, its the grand opening of the Digital Bayou, food, drinks and potions will be available. Meeting to follow? Brian > Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 17:35:25 -0700 > To: "David Frerichs" , > Mark Pesce , consort@vag.vrml.org > From: Clay Graham > Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. > At 02:27 PM 7/9/96 -0700, David Frerichs wrote: > >Let's meet on Sunday evening for dinner and drinks as suggested by Don. After a > >few hurricanes and some blackened catfish, we will all be a bit more agreeable. > > The voodoo people say that "Legba", keeper of the crossroads, lives in New > Orleans.... > > how appropriate. > > so where is the location of this unholy event? > > Clay > /------------------------------------/ > Clay Graham > Manager Virtual Reality Engineering > BigBook Inc. > 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 > San Francisco CA, 94107 > (415)284-9886x354 > /-----------------------------------/ > > > > * brian blau * intervista software * digital bayou siggraph96 * * blau@intervista.com * http://www.intervista.com * 415.434.8765 * * bayou.s96@siggraph.org * http://www.siggraph.org/conferences/siggraph96 * Papa Legba lives! Come see the gang from NYU Media Research Lab and their Legba avatar from 6:00 to 8:00pm on Sunday evening August 4th, its the grand opening of the Digital Bayou, food, drinks and potions will be available. Meeting to follow? Brian > Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 17:35:25 -0700 > To: "David Frerichs" , > Mark Pesce , consort@vag.vrml.org > From: Clay Graham > Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. > At 02:27 PM 7/9/96 -0700, David Frerichs wrote: > >Let's meet on Sunday evening for dinner and drinks as suggested by Don. After a > >few hurricanes and some blackened catfish, we will all be a bit more agreeable. > > The voodoo people say that "Legba", keeper of the crossroads, lives in New > Orleans.... > > how appropriate. > > so where is the location of this unholy event? > > Clay > /------------------------------------/ > Clay Graham > Manager Virtual Reality Engineering > BigBook Inc. > 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 > San Francisco CA, 94107 > (415)284-9886x354 > /-----------------------------------/ > > > > * brian blau * intervista software * digital bayou siggraph96 * * blau@intervista.com * http://www.intervista.com * 415.434.8765 * * bayou.s96@siggraph.org * http://www.siggraph.org/conferences/siggraph96 * give em' hell man... power struggles allow the hungry to destroy themselves and the pure to rise to the top, so it doesn't bother me that much, although it is pitiful. I once made the fatal mistake (with you present) of believing that these power structures matter, actually they are distractions from the real work we need to do. I apologize for my transgression into my darkest nature, but that really is an apology to myself. Hope this makes you feel better on some level. Clay At 01:36 PM 7/9/96 -0700, you wrote: >Gentz - > >After Brian's incredibly premature email about membership on the consortium >BOD, I've realized that several of you are *already* jockeying for the power >positions in the consortium. Despite my own efforts to illuminate the >futility and actual detriment of such roles... > >Let me make something clear: I do not want a role in the consortium. >(That's right, Rikk, take me off list of pre-subscribed BOD members...) > >You are free to do as you will. > >However, it is putting the cart *far* before the horse to design a >preliminary board of directors (with power positions for all and sundry) >before there is a consortium. If I do my job well, there will be *no need* >for anyone in that role. > >Mark > >----- >mpesce@netcom.com * http://www.hyperreal.com/~mpesce >mpesce@xs4all.nl * http://xs4all.nl/~mpesce (from Europe) > >"Coming to know the hidden and forgotten Mother and the marvelous wisdom of >the sacred feminine as revealed from every side and angle by the different >mystical traditions is not a luxury; it is, I believe, a necessity for our >survival as a species." - Andrew Harvey > > /------------------------------------/ Clay Graham Manager Virtual Reality Engineering BigBook Inc. 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 San Francisco CA, 94107 (415)284-9886x354 /-----------------------------------/ At 02:27 PM 7/9/96 -0700, David Frerichs wrote: >Let's meet on Sunday evening for dinner and drinks as suggested by Don. After a >few hurricanes and some blackened catfish, we will all be a bit more agreeable. The voodoo people say that "Legba", keeper of the crossroads, lives in New Orleans.... how appropriate. so where is the location of this unholy event? Clay /------------------------------------/ Clay Graham Manager Virtual Reality Engineering BigBook Inc. 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 San Francisco CA, 94107 (415)284-9886x354 /-----------------------------------/ At 02:27 PM 7/9/96 -0700, David Frerichs wrote: >Let's meet on Sunday evening for dinner and drinks as suggested by Don. After a >few hurricanes and some blackened catfish, we will all be a bit more agreeable. The voodoo people say that "Legba", keeper of the crossroads, lives in New Orleans.... how appropriate. so where is the location of this unholy event? Clay /------------------------------------/ Clay Graham Manager Virtual Reality Engineering BigBook Inc. 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 San Francisco CA, 94107 (415)284-9886x354 /-----------------------------------/ On Jul 9, 1:36pm, Mark Pesce wrote: > Subject: Preaching to the unconverted. > > However, it is putting the cart *far* before the horse to design a > preliminary board of directors (with power positions for all and sundry) > before there is a consortium. If I do my job well, there will be *no need* > for anyone in that role. I wholeheartedly agree. We need to hash this out in person and it is way premature for anyone to try and solidify anything. There are many routes we can go. Let's meet on Sunday evening for dinner and drinks as suggested by Don. After a few hurricanes and some blackened catfish, we will all be a bit more agreeable. -- David Frerichs Silicon Graphics Product Manager - VRML http://vrml.sgi.com frerichs@sgi.com http://www.sgi.com/Products/WebFORCE 415/933-5290 http://reality.sgi.com/frerichs_esd "Coffee Boss" - Ichiban Desu! On Jul 9, 1:36pm, Mark Pesce wrote: > Subject: Preaching to the unconverted. > > However, it is putting the cart *far* before the horse to design a > preliminary board of directors (with power positions for all and sundry) > before there is a consortium. If I do my job well, there will be *no need* > for anyone in that role. I wholeheartedly agree. We need to hash this out in person and it is way premature for anyone to try and solidify anything. There are many routes we can go. Let's meet on Sunday evening for dinner and drinks as suggested by Don. After a few hurricanes and some blackened catfish, we will all be a bit more agreeable. -- David Frerichs Silicon Graphics Product Manager - VRML http://vrml.sgi.com frerichs@sgi.com http://www.sgi.com/Products/WebFORCE 415/933-5290 http://reality.sgi.com/frerichs_esd "Coffee Boss" - Ichiban Desu! >Gentz - > >After Brian's incredibly premature email about membership on the consortium >BOD, Birian's note said "golden circle" not "bod". > I've realized that several of you are *already* jockeying for the power >positions in the consortium. Despite my own efforts to illuminate the >futility and actual detriment of such roles... > >Let me make something clear: I do not want a role in the consortium. Look, your supposed to be doing this because its fun. Are you saying its no longer fun? --linas Sincerely, Linas Vepstas ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^ Linas Vepstas Graphics Architecture IBM RS/6000 Zip 4449 Tie Line: 678-1116 11400 Burnet Road External Phone: 1-(512)-838-1116 Austin TX 78758-4449 mail: linas@austin.ibm.com work: http://w3.austin.ibm.com/~linas/ home: http://204.157.166.19/ ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^ At 01:36 PM 7/9/96 -0700, you wrote: >Gentz - > >After Brian's incredibly premature email about membership on the consortium >BOD, I've realized that several of you are *already* jockeying for the power >positions in the consortium. Despite my own efforts to illuminate the >futility and actual detriment of such roles... > >Let me make something clear: I do not want a role in the consortium. >(That's right, Rikk, take me off list of pre-subscribed BOD members...) > >You are free to do as you will. > >However, it is putting the cart *far* before the horse to design a >preliminary board of directors (with power positions for all and sundry) >before there is a consortium. If I do my job well, there will be *no need* >for anyone in that role. I have not read the entire thread of this conversation yet, but just wanted to point out that power was exactly what I had in mind. That is, the power to actually get something done. If you interpret this as some play on personal power or control or whatever, you should ask me/us, rather than speculate. The answer would be "no". I personally would love to do other things with my time. However, I feel that the responsibility has fallen on our shoulders and wanted to put some teeth behind it. Honestly, power on the BOD of the VRML Consortium? I never would have put these two concepts together until you brought it up. Not sure why you over-reacted. If you don't want to be on the BOD, fine. Or, is this really just your way of saying that you don't think that this is a good idea. Let's get back into conversation-mode (and not turn this ugly, pretty please). rc BTW: if you are uncomfortable with the idea of a BOD, then let's talk about a better way to get the job done... -- Rikk Carey VRML Servant rikk@best.com 415-969-5910 VRML 2.0 Spec ----> http://vrml.sgi.com/moving-worlds I'll be there for the parties... And I can be at the meeting on Sunday. Tom Jim Doubek wrote: > > I'll be there for Chaco. > > - jim > > At 05:21 PM 7/10/96 -0700, you wrote: > >Include me in. > > > >On Jul 10, 8:54am, David Frerichs wrote: > >> Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. > >> Sounds like a good plan to me. > >> > >> On Jul 9, 6:32pm, Brian Blau wrote: > >> > Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. > >> > > >> > Papa Legba lives! I'll be there for Chaco. - jim At 05:21 PM 7/10/96 -0700, you wrote: >Include me in. > >On Jul 10, 8:54am, David Frerichs wrote: >> Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. >> Sounds like a good plan to me. >> >> On Jul 9, 6:32pm, Brian Blau wrote: >> > Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. >> > >> > Papa Legba lives! >> > >> > Come see the gang from NYU Media Research Lab and their Legba avatar >> > from 6:00 to 8:00pm on Sunday evening August 4th, its the grand >> > opening of the Digital Bayou, food, drinks and potions will be >available. >> > >> > Meeting to follow? >> > >> > Brian >> > >> > > Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 17:35:25 -0700 >> > > To: "David Frerichs" , >> > > Mark Pesce , >consort@vag.vrml.org >> > > From: Clay Graham >> > > Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. >> > >> > > At 02:27 PM 7/9/96 -0700, David Frerichs wrote: >> > > >Let's meet on Sunday evening for dinner and drinks as suggested >by Don. >> After a >> > > >few hurricanes and some blackened catfish, we will all be a bit >more >> agreeable. >> > > >> > > The voodoo people say that "Legba", keeper of the crossroads, >lives in New >> > > Orleans.... >> > > >> > > how appropriate. >> > > >> > > so where is the location of this unholy event? >> > > >> > > Clay >> > > /------------------------------------/ >> > > Clay Graham >> > > Manager Virtual Reality Engineering >> > > BigBook Inc. >> > > 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 >> > > San Francisco CA, 94107 >> > > (415)284-9886x354 >> > > /-----------------------------------/ >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > * brian blau * intervista software * digital bayou siggraph96 * >> > * blau@intervista.com * http://www.intervista.com * 415.434.8765 * >> > * bayou.s96@siggraph.org * >http://www.siggraph.org/conferences/siggraph96 * >> >-- End of excerpt from Brian Blau >> >> >> >> -- >> David Frerichs Silicon Graphics >> Product Manager - VRML http://vrml.sgi.com >> frerichs@sgi.com http://www.sgi.com/Products/WebFORCE >> 415/933-5290 http://reality.sgi.com/frerichs_esd >> "Coffee Boss" - Ichiban Desu! >> >>-- End of excerpt from David Frerichs > > > >-- >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Intervista Software > Cyberspace Development > >Tony Parisi tparisi@intervista.com >Chief Technical Officer http://www.intervista.com >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Doubek Chaco Communications, Inc. jimd@wogglebug.com (408) 865-0571 (408) 735-1839 http://www.chaco.com/ Include me in. On Jul 10, 8:54am, David Frerichs wrote: > Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. > Sounds like a good plan to me. > > On Jul 9, 6:32pm, Brian Blau wrote: > > Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. > > > > Papa Legba lives! > > > > Come see the gang from NYU Media Research Lab and their Legba avatar > > from 6:00 to 8:00pm on Sunday evening August 4th, its the grand > > opening of the Digital Bayou, food, drinks and potions will be available. > > > > Meeting to follow? > > > > Brian > > > > > Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 17:35:25 -0700 > > > To: "David Frerichs" , > > > Mark Pesce , consort@vag.vrml.org > > > From: Clay Graham > > > Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. > > > > > At 02:27 PM 7/9/96 -0700, David Frerichs wrote: > > > >Let's meet on Sunday evening for dinner and drinks as suggested by Don. > After a > > > >few hurricanes and some blackened catfish, we will all be a bit more > agreeable. > > > > > > The voodoo people say that "Legba", keeper of the crossroads, lives in New > > > Orleans.... > > > > > > how appropriate. > > > > > > so where is the location of this unholy event? > > > > > > Clay > > > /------------------------------------/ > > > Clay Graham > > > Manager Virtual Reality Engineering > > > BigBook Inc. > > > 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 > > > San Francisco CA, 94107 > > > (415)284-9886x354 > > > /-----------------------------------/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * brian blau * intervista software * digital bayou siggraph96 * > > * blau@intervista.com * http://www.intervista.com * 415.434.8765 * > > * bayou.s96@siggraph.org * http://www.siggraph.org/conferences/siggraph96 * > >-- End of excerpt from Brian Blau > > > > -- > David Frerichs Silicon Graphics > Product Manager - VRML http://vrml.sgi.com > frerichs@sgi.com http://www.sgi.com/Products/WebFORCE > 415/933-5290 http://reality.sgi.com/frerichs_esd > "Coffee Boss" - Ichiban Desu! > >-- End of excerpt from David Frerichs -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intervista Software Cyberspace Development Tony Parisi tparisi@intervista.com Chief Technical Officer http://www.intervista.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sounds like a good plan to me. On Jul 9, 6:32pm, Brian Blau wrote: > Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. > > Papa Legba lives! > > Come see the gang from NYU Media Research Lab and their Legba avatar > from 6:00 to 8:00pm on Sunday evening August 4th, its the grand > opening of the Digital Bayou, food, drinks and potions will be available. > > Meeting to follow? > > Brian > > > Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 17:35:25 -0700 > > To: "David Frerichs" , > > Mark Pesce , consort@vag.vrml.org > > From: Clay Graham > > Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. > > > At 02:27 PM 7/9/96 -0700, David Frerichs wrote: > > >Let's meet on Sunday evening for dinner and drinks as suggested by Don. After a > > >few hurricanes and some blackened catfish, we will all be a bit more agreeable. > > > > The voodoo people say that "Legba", keeper of the crossroads, lives in New > > Orleans.... > > > > how appropriate. > > > > so where is the location of this unholy event? > > > > Clay > > /------------------------------------/ > > Clay Graham > > Manager Virtual Reality Engineering > > BigBook Inc. > > 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 > > San Francisco CA, 94107 > > (415)284-9886x354 > > /-----------------------------------/ > > > > > > > > > > * brian blau * intervista software * digital bayou siggraph96 * > * blau@intervista.com * http://www.intervista.com * 415.434.8765 * > * bayou.s96@siggraph.org * http://www.siggraph.org/conferences/siggraph96 * >-- End of excerpt from Brian Blau -- David Frerichs Silicon Graphics Product Manager - VRML http://vrml.sgi.com frerichs@sgi.com http://www.sgi.com/Products/WebFORCE 415/933-5290 http://reality.sgi.com/frerichs_esd "Coffee Boss" - Ichiban Desu! I'll be there for Chaco. - jim At 05:21 PM 7/10/96 -0700, you wrote: >Include me in. > >On Jul 10, 8:54am, David Frerichs wrote: >> Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. >> Sounds like a good plan to me. >> >> On Jul 9, 6:32pm, Brian Blau wrote: >> > Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. >> > >> > Papa Legba lives! >> > >> > Come see the gang from NYU Media Research Lab and their Legba avatar >> > from 6:00 to 8:00pm on Sunday evening August 4th, its the grand >> > opening of the Digital Bayou, food, drinks and potions will be >available. >> > >> > Meeting to follow? >> > >> > Brian >> > >> > > Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 17:35:25 -0700 >> > > To: "David Frerichs" , >> > > Mark Pesce , >consort@vag.vrml.org >> > > From: Clay Graham >> > > Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. >> > >> > > At 02:27 PM 7/9/96 -0700, David Frerichs wrote: >> > > >Let's meet on Sunday evening for dinner and drinks as suggested >by Don. >> After a >> > > >few hurricanes and some blackened catfish, we will all be a bit >more >> agreeable. >> > > >> > > The voodoo people say that "Legba", keeper of the crossroads, >lives in New >> > > Orleans.... >> > > >> > > how appropriate. >> > > >> > > so where is the location of this unholy event? >> > > >> > > Clay >> > > /------------------------------------/ >> > > Clay Graham >> > > Manager Virtual Reality Engineering >> > > BigBook Inc. >> > > 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 >> > > San Francisco CA, 94107 >> > > (415)284-9886x354 >> > > /-----------------------------------/ >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > * brian blau * intervista software * digital bayou siggraph96 * >> > * blau@intervista.com * http://www.intervista.com * 415.434.8765 * >> > * bayou.s96@siggraph.org * >http://www.siggraph.org/conferences/siggraph96 * >> >-- End of excerpt from Brian Blau >> >> >> >> -- >> David Frerichs Silicon Graphics >> Product Manager - VRML http://vrml.sgi.com >> frerichs@sgi.com http://www.sgi.com/Products/WebFORCE >> 415/933-5290 http://reality.sgi.com/frerichs_esd >> "Coffee Boss" - Ichiban Desu! >> >>-- End of excerpt from David Frerichs > > > >-- >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Intervista Software > Cyberspace Development > >Tony Parisi tparisi@intervista.com >Chief Technical Officer http://www.intervista.com >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Doubek Chaco Communications, Inc. jimd@wogglebug.com (408) 865-0571 (408) 735-1839 http://www.chaco.com/ At 08:54 AM 7/10/96 -0700, David Frerichs wrote: bring on the big bad Bayou and some Consortium planning too! Yahoo! >Sounds like a good plan to me. > >On Jul 9, 6:32pm, Brian Blau wrote: >> Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. >> >> Papa Legba lives! >> >> Come see the gang from NYU Media Research Lab and their Legba avatar >> from 6:00 to 8:00pm on Sunday evening August 4th, its the grand >> opening of the Digital Bayou, food, drinks and potions will be available. >> >> Meeting to follow? >> >> Brian >> >> > Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 17:35:25 -0700 >> > To: "David Frerichs" , >> > Mark Pesce , consort@vag.vrml.org >> > From: Clay Graham >> > Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. >> >> > At 02:27 PM 7/9/96 -0700, David Frerichs wrote: >> > >Let's meet on Sunday evening for dinner and drinks as suggested by Don. >After a >> > >few hurricanes and some blackened catfish, we will all be a bit more >agreeable. >> > >> > The voodoo people say that "Legba", keeper of the crossroads, lives in New >> > Orleans.... >> > >> > how appropriate. >> > >> > so where is the location of this unholy event? >> > >> > Clay >> > /------------------------------------/ >> > Clay Graham >> > Manager Virtual Reality Engineering >> > BigBook Inc. >> > 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 >> > San Francisco CA, 94107 >> > (415)284-9886x354 >> > /-----------------------------------/ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> * brian blau * intervista software * digital bayou siggraph96 * >> * blau@intervista.com * http://www.intervista.com * 415.434.8765 * >> * bayou.s96@siggraph.org * http://www.siggraph.org/conferences/siggraph96 * >>-- End of excerpt from Brian Blau > > > >-- >David Frerichs Silicon Graphics >Product Manager - VRML http://vrml.sgi.com >frerichs@sgi.com http://www.sgi.com/Products/WebFORCE >415/933-5290 http://reality.sgi.com/frerichs_esd >"Coffee Boss" - Ichiban Desu! > > At 08:54 AM 7/10/96 -0700, David Frerichs wrote: bring on the big bad Bayou and some Consortium planning too! Yahoo! >Sounds like a good plan to me. > >On Jul 9, 6:32pm, Brian Blau wrote: >> Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. >> >> Papa Legba lives! >> >> Come see the gang from NYU Media Research Lab and their Legba avatar >> from 6:00 to 8:00pm on Sunday evening August 4th, its the grand >> opening of the Digital Bayou, food, drinks and potions will be available. >> >> Meeting to follow? >> >> Brian >> >> > Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 17:35:25 -0700 >> > To: "David Frerichs" , >> > Mark Pesce , consort@vag.vrml.org >> > From: Clay Graham >> > Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. >> >> > At 02:27 PM 7/9/96 -0700, David Frerichs wrote: >> > >Let's meet on Sunday evening for dinner and drinks as suggested by Don. >After a >> > >few hurricanes and some blackened catfish, we will all be a bit more >agreeable. >> > >> > The voodoo people say that "Legba", keeper of the crossroads, lives in New >> > Orleans.... >> > >> > how appropriate. >> > >> > so where is the location of this unholy event? >> > >> > Clay >> > /------------------------------------/ >> > Clay Graham >> > Manager Virtual Reality Engineering >> > BigBook Inc. >> > 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 >> > San Francisco CA, 94107 >> > (415)284-9886x354 >> > /-----------------------------------/ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> * brian blau * intervista software * digital bayou siggraph96 * >> * blau@intervista.com * http://www.intervista.com * 415.434.8765 * >> * bayou.s96@siggraph.org * http://www.siggraph.org/conferences/siggraph96 * >>-- End of excerpt from Brian Blau > > > >-- >David Frerichs Silicon Graphics >Product Manager - VRML http://vrml.sgi.com >frerichs@sgi.com http://www.sgi.com/Products/WebFORCE >415/933-5290 http://reality.sgi.com/frerichs_esd >"Coffee Boss" - Ichiban Desu! > > Mark Pesce wrote: > After Brian's incredibly premature email about membership on the > consortium > BOD, I've realized that several of you are *already* jockeying for > the power > positions in the consortium. Yow, that wasn't about jockeying for power, that was about getting something done. > However, it is putting the cart *far* before the horse to design a > preliminary board of directors (with power positions for all and sundry) > before there is a consortium. If I do my job well, there will be *no need* > for anyone in that role. I don't see the path from here to there. Maybe you can enlighten me? Who is going to do what when? The clear path I see is: A non-profit organization is formed. All the organizations I know about have some kind of board of directors/governors that makes decisions and is elected by and responsible to the members of the organization. There has to be somebody to form the organization, somebody with authority to write checks, accept money, set budgets, etc. The only somebodies with any authority in the VRML world right now are you, Tony (y'all started it), me and Rikk (we wrote the specs). -- Gavin Bell -- gavin@acm.org -- http://www.kudonet.com/~gavin (415) 813-0864 I didn't know unemployment was so much work VRML info: http://www.sdsc.edu/vrml http://vrml.sgi.com/ Sounds like a good plan to me. On Jul 9, 6:32pm, Brian Blau wrote: > Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. > > Papa Legba lives! > > Come see the gang from NYU Media Research Lab and their Legba avatar > from 6:00 to 8:00pm on Sunday evening August 4th, its the grand > opening of the Digital Bayou, food, drinks and potions will be available. > > Meeting to follow? > > Brian > > > Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 17:35:25 -0700 > > To: "David Frerichs" , > > Mark Pesce , consort@vag.vrml.org > > From: Clay Graham > > Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. > > > At 02:27 PM 7/9/96 -0700, David Frerichs wrote: > > >Let's meet on Sunday evening for dinner and drinks as suggested by Don. After a > > >few hurricanes and some blackened catfish, we will all be a bit more agreeable. > > > > The voodoo people say that "Legba", keeper of the crossroads, lives in New > > Orleans.... > > > > how appropriate. > > > > so where is the location of this unholy event? > > > > Clay > > /------------------------------------/ > > Clay Graham > > Manager Virtual Reality Engineering > > BigBook Inc. > > 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 > > San Francisco CA, 94107 > > (415)284-9886x354 > > /-----------------------------------/ > > > > > > > > > > * brian blau * intervista software * digital bayou siggraph96 * > * blau@intervista.com * http://www.intervista.com * 415.434.8765 * > * bayou.s96@siggraph.org * http://www.siggraph.org/conferences/siggraph96 * >-- End of excerpt from Brian Blau -- David Frerichs Silicon Graphics Product Manager - VRML http://vrml.sgi.com frerichs@sgi.com http://www.sgi.com/Products/WebFORCE 415/933-5290 http://reality.sgi.com/frerichs_esd "Coffee Boss" - Ichiban Desu! Include me in. On Jul 10, 8:54am, David Frerichs wrote: > Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. > Sounds like a good plan to me. > > On Jul 9, 6:32pm, Brian Blau wrote: > > Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. > > > > Papa Legba lives! > > > > Come see the gang from NYU Media Research Lab and their Legba avatar > > from 6:00 to 8:00pm on Sunday evening August 4th, its the grand > > opening of the Digital Bayou, food, drinks and potions will be available. > > > > Meeting to follow? > > > > Brian > > > > > Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 17:35:25 -0700 > > > To: "David Frerichs" , > > > Mark Pesce , consort@vag.vrml.org > > > From: Clay Graham > > > Subject: Re: Preaching to the unconverted. > > > > > At 02:27 PM 7/9/96 -0700, David Frerichs wrote: > > > >Let's meet on Sunday evening for dinner and drinks as suggested by Don. > After a > > > >few hurricanes and some blackened catfish, we will all be a bit more > agreeable. > > > > > > The voodoo people say that "Legba", keeper of the crossroads, lives in New > > > Orleans.... > > > > > > how appropriate. > > > > > > so where is the location of this unholy event? > > > > > > Clay > > > /------------------------------------/ > > > Clay Graham > > > Manager Virtual Reality Engineering > > > BigBook Inc. > > > 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 > > > San Francisco CA, 94107 > > > (415)284-9886x354 > > > /-----------------------------------/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * brian blau * intervista software * digital bayou siggraph96 * > > * blau@intervista.com * http://www.intervista.com * 415.434.8765 * > > * bayou.s96@siggraph.org * http://www.siggraph.org/conferences/siggraph96 * > >-- End of excerpt from Brian Blau > > > > -- > David Frerichs Silicon Graphics > Product Manager - VRML http://vrml.sgi.com > frerichs@sgi.com http://www.sgi.com/Products/WebFORCE > 415/933-5290 http://reality.sgi.com/frerichs_esd > "Coffee Boss" - Ichiban Desu! > >-- End of excerpt from David Frerichs -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intervista Software Cyberspace Development Tony Parisi tparisi@intervista.com Chief Technical Officer http://www.intervista.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 11:14 AM 7/9/96 -0700, you wrote: >Monday is - as far as I know - impossible; I must teach at Mactivity/Web... > >Mark Are you interested? If not, then I will tell him there's no point. rc -- Rikk Carey VRML Servant rikk@best.com 415-969-5910 VRML 2.0 Spec ----> http://vrml.sgi.com/moving-worlds Rikk Carey writes: > What part is hazy? Why we're working with a formal stds group? > Why we chose ISO? Why a formal standard is good? "Why we chose ISO." There was not a comparison of standards groups, pros and cons associated with each group, or requirements list. There was some inconclusive email discussion only. An informed choice would likely look like other VRML standards issues: determine criteria, propose alternatives, discuss & demonstrate, poll, reach consensus, move forward and test results. > >I still believe that the choice of standards organization and choice of > >consortium structure are VRML standards issues, and thus for the VRML group > >at large. I hope our fellow consortium list members will be willing to push > >these issues out into daylight soon. > > Uh, haven't we chosen already? (i.e. ISO) The "we" you refer to is the VAG. The list concurred VRML needs a formal standard, but the list never chose ISO (or any other group). My motivation is not to make trouble here (no really!). My motivation is that standards formalization has led to some horror stories for many other good efforts. To recognize and minimize the dangers here, I recommend we use the VRML standards-building process that has served us so well. all the best, Don -- Don Brutzman Naval Postgraduate School, Code UW/Br Root 200 work 408.656.2149 Monterey California 93943-5000 USA fax 408.656.3679 Virtual worlds/underwater robots/Internet http://www.stl.nps.navy.mil/~brutzman Brian Behlendorf writes: > On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, Don Brutzman wrote: > > Thanks Brian. I'm still hoping to hear your promised reactions to my > > W3C criticisms too. Congrats on surviving trial by in-laws -- mine > > live in town. > > Actually I started to write that and found myself lost in a haze of > could-have-beens and we're-only-human-isms... and I agreed mostly with > what you said anyways, I was only going to try and expand on a couple of > topics. Ah well. Thanks. I hope this underlines my comment about how IETF processes drive to closure rapidly, one way or the other, and that is a good thing for progress/breaking deadlocks. A very good W3C thing I failed to mention: WWW Journal. It will be interesting to see if ISO gives anything at all to VRML besides a style guide, an attempt to charge readers for copies and some kind of legal imprint on the cover page to scare away hijack lawyers. Maybe that's all we need. Glad to hear Rikk has us off to a good start, but the rationale remains real hazy. I still believe that the choice of standards organization and choice of consortium structure are VRML standards issues, and thus for the VRML group at large. I hope our fellow consortium list members will be willing to push these issues out into daylight soon. all the best, Don -- Don Brutzman Naval Postgraduate School, Code UW/Br Root 200 work 408.656.2149 Monterey California 93943-5000 USA fax 408.656.3679 Virtual worlds/underwater robots/Internet http://www.stl.nps.navy.mil/~brutzman >Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:03:44 -0700 >To: linas@austin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas) >From: Mark Pesce >Subject: Re: VRML Consortium mailing list established/ISO > >Linas - > >There was a core document - which you have read and replied to - which >outlines the functions of the consortium. OK, Don says "Rikk, ..." not "Mark, ..." so I thought that there is some other core document that Rikk wrote. All I remeber reading & replying to is your original note. >As for your concerns, it's quite good that they are stressed once - and >perhaps again - but this continuous repetition is beginning to sound a bit - >um - petulant. You and I had several chats on this, but the public group did not. The only person who replied was Don. I dunno, no one else cares? Maybe this isn;t important to anyone else? I don't know how to read the silence. I'm trying to be nice ... just wasn't born that way I guess. --linas Hi Rikk I spoke to The Powers That Be at IETF, basically, we *can* get it published as an Informational RFC, this also is a "rubber-stamping" process, based on the VRML community having done its own process on it. Since we want a rubber-stamp, then we should go through the process with the final draft. Which means we don't need to do anything until SigGraph, and then produce the required documents. I'd be happy to do the sheperding of the document through the process, which in theory takes two or three weeks. I've done some of the ground-work already (no commitments, just a "what if"). It would be clear that no changes could be made to the document by IETF. I don't see this as competitive with ISO, just quicker. We should do both, since neither organisation gets to revise the standard this should be fine. Doing both will make it easier both for those doing internet things, and those poor souls who have to deal with the government (can you say GOSIP). On the latter ....once it goes through ISO, someone who cares should try and get it added to GOSIP. - Mitra ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mitra, Chief Network Technology Officer, Paragraph Int'l Home: +1(415)826-2499 Office: +1(408)364-7700 mitra@earth.path.net http://earth.path.net/mitra **** Life is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved ****** Rikk - the big questions is raised by the following .... >The goals for standardization is primarily to put VRML onto an open, formal >path that results in adoption by early and late majority companies/consumers. >There are lots of other process and emotional reasons that can >be stated, but at the center of it all, it comes down to "taming" VRML >so that the rest of the world (read ultra-conservative) will use it. >ISO was there, so we took it - it appears to be working so far. If all you want is an ISO rubber-stamp, then it makes sense, and we can get an IETF rubber-stamp as well. If revisions to the standard then get decided by ISO or IETF, then I think that would be a very bad idea, they simply cannot move fast enough to keep pace with the technology. - Mitra ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mitra, Chief Network Technology Officer, Paragraph Int'l Home: +1(415)826-2499 Office: +1(408)364-7700 mitra@earth.path.net http://earth.path.net/mitra **** Life is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved ****** YON - Jan C. Hardenbergh wrote: >>I assume that you are on the consort@vag.vrml.org mailing list, right? > >Probably as jch@netscape - I thought vag@vag.vrml.org would have been on it? >Well, gee, maybe that explains a lot of feeling left out! Is there a way to >auto-enroll jch@jch.com? I don't do root on kether. I've changed it from jch@netscape.com to jch@jch.com. James -- James Waldrop / Technical Director sulam@construct.net / Construct Internet Design sulam@well.com / http://www.construct.net "[The Internet] allows the entire world to think and write like North Americans. This is the agenda of the Internet. It goes along with NAFTA." Hi, I don't know if I announced this publically or not, so I'll repeat the formal answer to Brian Behlendorf's question: "IBM supports the idea of a VRML Consortium, and would be interested in joining such a Consortium when formed." Well, it strikes me that the VRML Consortium today is where VRML was a couple of years ago -- a lot of talk, nothing concrete on paper. Until its all written down & agreed to, nothing will happen. So here is an attempt to put the issues down, as I would see them (more accurately, as what my management would want to see before forking over the dough). Most of the below is a condensation of what I thought Mark was saying, and other stuff I overheard. -- A mission statement. "The VRML Consortium will ... ?" o Promote VRML usage? o Control the VRML Spec ? -- both the 1.0 and 2.0 specs? -- also Java bindings? -- also tcl/tk, C, C++, fortran bindings? o Provide a forum for VRML issue resolution ? -- will meet 4 times a year? -- will be open to the public (at least the technical sessions will be?) o Fund VRML tools development ? -- including debugger? trace tool ? o Archive and maintain VRML test suites? -- A complex servies of .wrl's that stress browsers in various ways? o Will develop a conformance suite? -- A series of .wrl's that a conforming browser must be able to parse and correctly display? o Will trademark the words "VRML" and attempt to enforce conformance by issuing the trademark only to compliant systems? o (Mark, you broke this down into for parts, -- Standards & Specifications -- Conformance & Compliance -- Research & Development -- Marketing & Education I guess I should restructure above to match this format, but someone is wating at the door for lunch, so...) What else? Remember the pre-vrml-1.0 vote, where everyone got to weigh in on whether CSG, NURBS, bump-mapping etc. support was important for vrml 1.0? Maybe we could have a vote like that again, on the above list. -- Bylaws. This is where the actual structure is determined. o Senior membership $50K o Junior membership $5K o Large comapnies (revenues > $50M) MUST join as senior (??) o Two bodies: 1 technical, 1 financial. -- Technical Board (TB), one company, one vote. -- Financial Oversight Board (FOB), one dollar, one vote. o Consortium can be dissolved by unanimous vote of of FOB. o Additional members can join -- by invitation only (majority must approve new member)? -- by spnsorship (one campany required to support new membership application)? -- open to any educaional or corporate entitiy? (you pay the bucks, you belong?) -- open to private individuals? o Members can be kicked out -- by majority vote? -- by supermajority vote (2/3's or 3/4's) -- never? -- by missing 4 or more consecutive meetings? o Technical board will oversee -- control of spec, language bindings. -- conformance suite -- debuggers, trace tools, etc. -- run web site, maintain archive. -- make funding recommendations to financial board -- will meet 4 times a year ? o Financial Board will -- approve use of funds for development of code, tests, suites. -- approve salaries of officers -- solicit for donations of equipment -- pay web server telecomunications bills -- pay rent, a/c, phone bills, etc. -- will meet at least once a year ? -- will have sole power to modify these bylaws? o bylaw amendments must pass by 2/3's vote? Now, I note that there is still a lot about W3C, IETF, XOpen, etc. But I am coming to think that this is a time-waster and a great way of getting side-tracked. Lets look at why we would want to join one of these groups: -- thier bylaws resemble what we would want for our bylaws. Then we'd join them to save money on legal costs (drafting the bylaws), tax costs (dealing with the IRS if we are to be non-profit corporation), etc. -- legitamacy. Nothing like being legit. But then, a solid charter, & bylaws & a couple of big members makes one legit. -- publicity. Well, really, do we need this now? -- save money on rent. Well, too low a priority right now. Maybe we can find some technology incubator joint that is willing to give discounts on rent & phone. What's the downside of joining? -- they goble our money, we get nothing back. -- we can't meet often enough due to thier rules & regs. -- we are forced to meet too often. -- some comittee of thiers has veto power over our specs. -- we can't fund conformance suite development due to thier rules & regs. -- thier web site is down all the time, and they won't allow us to run our own. -- we have to meet at the same time as thier plenary session, which conflicts with siggraph, autofact, comdex ... whatever. -- whenever we meet with them, they always put us in the smallest, dinkiest conference room. -- we can always get joined at the hip later ... I dunno ... I just don't see much benefit in joining any of these groups, and on the flip-side, a lot of negatives, bad reputation, lost time trying to figure out their bylaws ... Most important, if we do join, I think it would be very wise to come in knowing what we want out of the deal, and knowing how we will get it. In particular, this means writing up the mission statement and agreeing to it *before* applying for membership. So how does this sound? Who wants to put together the rough draft of the mission statement, so that it can be picked apart? --linas Sincerely, Linas Vepstas ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^ Linas Vepstas Graphics Architecture IBM RS/6000 Zip 4449 Tie Line: 678-1116 11400 Burnet Road External Phone: 1-(512)-838-1116 Austin TX 78758-4449 mail: linas@austin.ibm.com work: http://w3.austin.ibm.com/~linas/ home: http://204.157.166.19/ ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^ Mark Can we get together on Monday afternoon, either at your place of I'll try to find a place in Palo Alto. Chris Harding the X/Open development manager will be in Ft Collins CO and could join us via teleconference. I think around 2 or 3 PM would be ideal. -Pete Mark, Rikk, Tony and Gavin, There was some wrangling of ideas yesterday on how to proceed with the VRML consortium. Mark, Rikk and Gavin met in the morning and the rest of us met for lunch shortly afterward. The conversation centered around how to politically and economically structure the consortium with minimal public resistance and maximal working effectiveness. Lots of ideas were passed around and there were a few that stood out at potential winners. There were 4 main issues: ===> The Board of Directors <=== This is both a political and functional issue. The VAG previously agreed (at the last meeting in Half Moon Bay) that all 8 would be the first BOD (Board of Directors) of the VC (VRML Consortium). Yesterday the suggestion was made that Rikk, Tony, Gavin and Mark be the only members of the VAG that actually make it to the BOD. I suggested having a 5th member that could serve several purposes. If this member did not come from the VAG it would be a clear message that what we are doing is a distinct directional change, moving beyond the VAG to something real. Also, odd numbers are good for breaking voting ties. Andy Van Dam is a natural choice for the 5th BOD seat. Rikk is willing to bury the hatchet with Andy because he feels Andy is the best candidate to help the VC get going. This is a good thing! Also Andy has great ties into the government and educational communities as well as very good business connections. Since Andy would be a new member to the VRML scene having him as a directional leader will be a very nice message to the world saying here are 5 great leaders and grandfathers of this technology. ===> The day-to-day working manager <=== This position is not really the directional leader. It is only a temporary position (say 6 months) that is the real grunt worker. The job description is all encompassing but there is not a real amount of power here. This person does everything in the first VC office, from taking out the trash, to organizing meetings, to fund raising, charter membership corralling, by-law writing and rewriting _ you get the drift. This person will work under the BOD but will also help to make it possible for the VC to exist on a day to day basis. This person could transition to a permanent position in the VC, only if the charter members (voting members) and BOD think this person is worthy. We talked about Rikk being the "stand-in" manager while the full transition is underway. After some period of time (say 6 months) the current board members would relinquish control to whomever the VC members vote in. No one of us today has a long term interest in lots of personal control in the VC. ===> The VAG and its transition to the consortium <=== Everyone wants to make sure that a smooth, clear and dependable transition from the VAG to the VC is made. Because of our previous agreement at the last meeting Jan, Jon, Tom and myself are basically going to be left out if the above proposal is implemented. A solution to this is 2 fold, first the VAG is the group (in unison) that creates the VC and votes in the first BOD. Second, all VAG members hold a position in the VC as direct advisors to the BOD during the transition period. This way the current VAG still has a voice and at the same time is making a clear attempt at putting the VC and its charter members as the real focus. We feel that Jan, Jon and Tom will agree to this with some coaxing from the rest of us. This must be done carefully so that progress continues to move forward. We want to avoid fighting now as SIGGRAPH and the announcement are quickly upon us. Everyone has had lots of time to consider these actions _ lets move quickly. All of the VAG members have contributed greatly to the success of VRML, each bringing different ideas, technology and good hard volunteer work to the table. There really should be a place for all VAG members in the VC. I hold a special place _ just as other VAG members I have been very active this past year with VRML. I have continually played a key role in VRML technology for the entire industry. First at Autodesk where I did early VRML (don't forget that CDF came in 2nd for the VRML 1.0 spec), then with 3D Studio and the IPAS plugin. At Intervista I helped create VRML for Microsoft, SGI, Macromedia, Mak, Intel and Ziff Davis. I feel somewhat responsible for putting good solid VRML code and content in these peoples hands. And for the past 19 months I have successfully worked VRML into the main story at SIGGRAPH. VRML is all over SIGGRAPH this year, courses, papers, panels, art show, Digital Bayou has a large section totally devoted to VRML, even the main announcement out of SIGGRAPH has VRML as part of its story. My qualifications stand solid. In terms of the whole process I've not done lots of spec writing but in my mind what I have done is very important in terms of visibility, market focus, direction and delivery of technology and content. I urge you to consider including me as official member of the Board or in another capacity. ===> Press release at SIGGRAPH <=== The announcement of VRML 2.0 spec and the VRML Consortium will be made at the main SIGGRAH press briefing Tuesday Morning August 6th at 8am. I am going to see if I can get the core VRML BODs into that press briefing but there is no guarantee here. I can try to provide a venue inside of the Digital Bayou where the press can interview us VRML folks. If this event happens, please be prepared for anything (meaning either no one or lots of people will attend). I hope to set this event up for Tuesday at noon on the Bayou stage. More details later on this. Also I am working on the official VAG press release. It should be ready by weeks end and I will send out as soon as its ready. Brian * brian blau * intervista software * digital bayou siggraph96 * * blau@intervista.com * http://www.intervista.com * 415.434.8765 * * bayou.s96@siggraph.org * http://www.siggraph.org/conferences/siggraph96 * Dan R. Greening writes: > I've been talking to BAMTA (Broad Alliance for Multimedia, Technology, and > Applications) about hosting the VRML consortium. I'm almost positive they'd > donate the office space (and they are also talking about sponsoring a VRML > conference coming up). They have high-end hardware, big conference rooms, a > T1. [...] I attended a BAMTA meeting today, saw the facilities, network growth plans, etc. Impressive. I agree with Dan's statements, BAMTA is a good candidate for such a site. Most interesting was a bunch of "incubating" startup companies (i.e. individuals with big ideas and big dreams) hosted there. > ... About 70 miles from Monterey, where the > Naval Postgraduate School and Don Brutzman reside. And you can hear the > screams from Paramount Great America amusement park. Disclaimer: there is no public proof that those two things are related. :) aaaaaaaaaieeeee, Don -- Don Brutzman Naval Postgraduate School, Code UW/Br Root 200 work 408.656.2149 Monterey California 93943-5000 USA fax 408.656.3679 Virtual worlds/underwater robots/Internet http://www.stl.nps.navy.mil/~brutzman At 12:40 PM 7/10/96 -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote: >-- save money on rent. Well, too low a priority right now. > Maybe we can find some technology incubator joint that > is willing to give discounts on rent & phone. I've been talking to BAMTA (Broad Alliance for Multimedia, Technology, and Applications) about hosting the VRML consortium. I'm almost positive they'd donate the office space (and they are also talking about sponsoring a VRML conference coming up). They have high-end hardware, big conference rooms, a T1. BAMTA is in Santa Clara, California, and has strong affiliations with (e.g. grants from) NASA, Smart Valley, SGI, IBM, Apple, etc. Non-profit. Has two functions: find synergies between government high-tech needs and multimedia industry, and train whole communities in multimedia production. Their "Digital Clubhouse" is pretty hot: sponsoring a "Producing the Producers" program, essentially a pyramid scheme for getting teachers and community members to become multimedia/Internet trainers. BAMTA is closely tied with Smart Valley, who helped do the whole "Net Day" thing last year. It started out as "wire the silicon valley" and became "wire the nation". BAMTA wants to do a similar thing, with multimedia technology and content production. Santa Clara is in Silicon Valley, close to many VRML software participants: SGI, Netscape, Apple, IBM, Paragraph, Chaco, Axial. Of course, tons of related software industries as well. About 50 miles from San Francisco, where many content folks reside. About 70 miles from Monterey, where the Naval Postgraduate School and Don Brutzman reside. And you can hear the screams from Paramount Great America amusement park. Anyway, that's my plug for BAMTA as a potential home. Dan Greening Chaco Dan Greening, Ph.D. Chaco Communications, Inc. 10164 Parkwood Dr. Suite 8 greening@chaco.com 408-865-0657 fax 865-0571 Cupertino, CA 95014 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Create multimedia social spaces with Pueblo. http://www.chaco.com/pueblo/ The speaker slides deadline for AVW is July 17. Templates are at http://www.siggraph.org/conferences/siggraph96/core/logistics/templates.html POC is Leah Lair, e-mail is avw@siggraph.org 214.634.9060 x 430 voice 214.638.0031 fax all the best, Don -- Don Brutzman Naval Postgraduate School, Code UW/Br Root 200 work 408.656.2149 Monterey California 93943-5000 USA fax 408.656.3679 Virtual worlds/underwater robots/Internet http://www.stl.nps.navy.mil/~brutzman Mark, would you add me (anderson@merl.com) to the mailing list where discussions about the formation of a VRML consortium are taking place? John Barrus has forwarded to me the messages that have gone out so far, and I'd like to get in the loop. I can be available on Sunday at Siggraph to meet to discuss consortium issues, and would like to do that. Like Don I'm planning to attend the all-day Toy Story tutorial, but will skip (part of) it if necessary. --david I got two private responses - one from Brian talking about a press release and one from Tom about life at fv.com What is the VAG? Who wants to know? ISO thinks the VAG is something. The VAG has provided decent leadership to the VRML standard. Perhaps that should be its only goal. Forget this consortium stuff. The conformance can be handled by NIST, the trade shows will happen of their own accord. Perhaps the VAG should be a self selecting body of eight individuals with the time and resources to get together and as a group: endeavors to focus and articulate the sentiments of the VRML community in order to foster the development of a scalable, fully interactive standard for cyberspace. Each person at each meeting would have eight votes for who would be invited to the next VAG meeting. All but those whose mission in life was to further VRML would end up at the meetings and who worked well in the group. I am currently part of the VAG, until I get kicked off or quit. The same is true for each of, right? YON - Jan C. Hardenbergh - http://www.jch.com/~jch jch@jch.com aka jch@{netscape, ultranet, world.std}.com "Only the real world is so unreal" Tracy Bonham - 1996 At 02:55 PM 1996/07/13 -0700, Mark Pesce wrote: >RU working today? You poor pathetic thing. > >Mark (who is working today) You poor pathetic thing! What is work? (changing momentum) Is reading eMail work? >P.S. - I am now wearing the world's coolest pair of eyeglasses. It's Sunday, I don't feel like finishing those expense reports, I better go study page 339. YON - Jan C. Hardenbergh - http://www.jch.com/~jch jch@jch.com aka jch@{netscape, ultranet, world.std}.com "Only the real world is so unreal" Tracy Bonham - 1996 At 12:07 PM 1996/07/17 -0700, Mark Pesce wrote: >we won't conflict with the NIST meeting; I was thinking afternoonish. Fine, the only thing I have on Monday was to try to decipher them thar wavelets. [aside from NIST then course reception] YON - Jan C. Hardenbergh - http://www.jch.com/~jch jch@jch.com aka jch@{netscape, ultranet, world.std}.com The tragedy of increasingly returning to the commons - OOC. Dear Consorts, I think this is about the "effort to make an effort" thing right now, I honestly feel like the companies that have a real interest should participate now and worry about the money later. Send your representitives to meetings like the one at SIGGRAPH, read and write some emails, maybe even call people, these are the most important things first. This kind of investment is crucial at this point.Everyone knows that mindshare is most important at this stage in the game, SO GO GET SOME. Whats at stake? The future of an open networked visual programming environment. Everyone on this list has something at stake, Mark does have a keen eye on this one. At the very least he makes sure everyone who needs be locked in a room to fight it out, at least gets an invitation. Let's all start talking about what we want a consortium to do. How does it protect my bussiness interests while also building a robust development community (a channel)? By making sure I have a stake in the proccess that. Makes it open. Makes it THE networked visual programming standard. Revises the spec to adapt to "emergent technologies". Look when everyone saw that you could use RSX to do some cool stuff AudioClip came to the forefront, and Intel helped work on that Node, so REALLY we are all in this together. Lets look at it this way first, lets look at what kind of services we need to achieve those simply stated but very complex goals, and THEN lets build it. The money will come don't worry about that. Clay BTW. Email me if you are going to be in SF on 7/31 and want to go to a party. At 06:45 PM 7/15/96 -0500, you wrote: > >Hi Don, > >My mail here has been less than reliable, so it is possible >this got zapped in the ether, but ... you seem to be refering >to some mail which I don't think I got ?? > >I do not recall seeing, nor can I find, a "detailed review of the >standardization situation." Was this a piece of mail sent on >this list, or is this a web page I haven't seen yet? > >--------------- > >I would like to remind everyone on this group that while >I would like to see IBM join the consortium, I cannot move >forward on this without a clear, written, agreed-upon statement >about what the consortium would hope to accomplish. (Call press >conferences? Control Specs? Write code? Trademark, and >"vigorously defend" the VRML trademark? Teach high-school >kids about 3D? Give away lapel buttons at siggraph? All, >none, some of the above?) > >In particular, I can state that there is a snow=balls chance >in hell that my company would join without getting an official >copy of a Charter/Statement of Purpose and Bylaws. I would be >very surprised if this was not the case for the other (large) >corporations, like SGI & Microsoft. > >I received a surprising personal comminique that seemed to >state that the consortium was somehow "obvious", and all I >have to do is ask. Does everyone here agree on what they >think the Consortium will do, and what they will get out >of it? Is there mail or a web site that I am missing? > > >--linas > > >>From: brutzman@cs.nps.navy.mil (Don Brutzman) >>Subject: Re: VRML Consortium mailing list established/ISO >>To: rikk@best.com (Rikk Carey) >>Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 20:48:35 -0700 (PDT) >> >>Rikk, your detailed review of the standardization situation is helpful. >>Thanks for filling in knowledge gaps and correcting some of my mistaken >>conclusions. If any of my comments seemed like personal criticisms, >>towards you or others, that was not intended and I apologize. >> >>The main thing grinding me is a belief that choice of a partner standards >>organization is an integral part of whether the standard (and long-term >>standards-making process) is effective. Perhaps a future appendix which >>explains the relationship between ISO and VRML is a good way to document >>the facts. If so, I am willing to work to help produce something like that. >> >>Your patience with this sideshow while in the midst of the real spec work >>is appreciated. >> >>all the best, Don >>-- >>Don Brutzman Naval Postgraduate School, Code UW/Br Root 200 work 408.656.2149 >> Monterey California 93943-5000 USA fax 408.656.3679 >>Virtual worlds/underwater robots/Internet http://www.stl.nps.navy.mil/~brutzman >> > /------------------------------------/ Clay Graham Manager Virtual Reality Engineering BigBook Inc. 448 Bryant Street, Suite 150 San Francisco CA, 94107 (415)284-9886x354 /-----------------------------------/ Mark Didn't get a response to my earlier mail, bu then my mail has been lsing messages sporadically. Sorry for the typos am connected over a very poor line. Pleas call me at 508-486-2080 and leave a voice mail with a phone number where I can reach you so we can set up a meeting. -Pete I have conflicting reports if the original posting, below, ever posted to the list. I never saw it. It was sent to www-vrml@wired.com. After reading your note, I did copy the consort on an FYI copy, but it's THE LIST I'm trying to hit. I've just reposted again so we'll see. YOU will be getting 2: the post (I hope) and the FYI copy sent to consort as a sep. mailing. GRAY At 10:43 AM 7/17/96 -0700, you wrote: >if you sent it to consort@vag.vrml.org it should post. did it not? >or did you send it somewhere else? > >Mark > >At 08:29 AM 7/17/96 -0700, you wrote: >>Is the list moderated? Did I not send this correctly? I never saw it post. >> >>GRAY >> >> >>>Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 13:45:56 -0700 >>>To: www-vrml@wired.com >>>From: Grayson Schlichting >>>Subject: ANNOUNCE: Call for SIGGRAPH VRML Demos >>>Bcc: piguet@4thplanet.com,brutzman@cs.nps.navy.mil, Val >>> >>>ANNOUNCE: Call for SIGGRAPH VRML Demos >>> >>>This is a call for Requests-to-Demonstrate at >>>the VRML SIG the evening of August 6 at SIGGRAPH >>>96 in New Orleans. >>> >>>Note there are two evenings of VRML SIG events >>>at the convention center: >>> >>>* Demonstrations SIG >>>Tuesday August 6, 6-8 pm >>>Moderator: Gray Schlichting (gray@bamta.org) >>> >>>Technical Discussion SIG >>>Wednesday August 7, 6-8 pm >>>Moderator: Chris Marrin who will issue a call >>>for Agenda Items soon. >>> >>>The Demonstrations SIG is being hosted by >>>BAMTA's VR Working Group (more below) and we are >>>calling for parties interested in demonstrating >>>new and innovative VRML content or applications. >>> >>>A total of 10 demos at 7 minutes each are >>>possible, plus standbys, and we will have T1 or >>>better Internet connectivity. For more details, >>>visit our online submission form at >>>http://www.bamta.org/siggraph96vrml.html >>> >>>If you are interested in assisting our working >>>group in any aspect from creative awards to >>>system configuration at the show, please write >>>to us at vrml@bamta.org >>> >>>The Working Group for Networked VR Applications >>>BAMTA >>>----- >>> >>>BAMTA? We are a non-profit industry alliance >>>with over 75 member companies and institutions. >>>Our mission is to accelerate networked >>>multimedia applications and technologies through >>>collaborative Projects, Working Groups, and >>>Initiatives. Our physical facilities include a >>>22,000 sq. ft. Collaboratory, Learning Center, >>>and Digital Clubhouse located in Santa Clara, >>>CA. >>> >>>* BAMTA >>>* Broad Alliance for Multimedia Technology and Applications >>>* 2540 Mission College Blvd. >>>* Santa Clara, CA 95054 >>>* http://www.bamta.org vrml@bamta.org >>> >>>"The Global Alliance for Networked Multimedia Technology" >>> >> >> >> > >----- >mpesce@netcom.com * http://www.hyperreal.com/~mpesce >mpesce@xs4all.nl * http://xs4all.nl/~mpesce (from Europe) > >"Coming to know the hidden and forgotten Mother and the marvelous wisdom of >the sacred feminine as revealed from every side and angle by the different >mystical traditions is not a luxury; it is, I believe, a necessity for our >survival as a species." - Andrew Harvey > > > I can attend the meeting any time on Sunday (though I'm hoping to attend the Toy Story tutorial). BTW, can I get added to this list? John Barrus is in the middle of moving to California, and I'd like to get involved on behalf of MERL. --david Mark Had hoped to get together with you while I was out here, but alas mail hasn't proven to be too reliable. If perchance you get this message and can make a meeting today Wednesday 7/17 prior to 6:00 PM in the greater Palo Alto area, then send me mail or call me at either 415-617-3204 or leave voice mail at 508-486-2080. Hope we can connect, but if not then let's try to catch up by phone. -Pete Hey, I received a reply from Gary Millrood. He's enthusiastic to move forward on the consortium front. I'd like you two to connect directly, and keep myself and Brian in the loop as necessary. We should broach this with the rest of the VAG as soon as possible. I would like them to be prepared, and not feel like there are any "backroom deals" being made here. (There aren't). Gary can be reached at Gary_Millrood@sbexpos.com or gmillrood@sbexpos.com Let's go! -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intervista Software Cyberspace Development Tony Parisi tparisi@intervista.com Chief Technical Officer http://www.intervista.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark, why don't we set up a time this week or next to talk. Please contact me at your soonest convience to set up a time. In the mean time we are working swiftly to prepare a a rough first draft proposal for a VRML Association and Conference. I'm still up in the air whether I can make it to Siggraph. If not we will certainly hook up either next week, or the week after Siggraph. GM To: mpesce @ sirius.com @ INTERNET cc: gmillrood @ sbexpos.com @ INTERNET, blau @ intervista.com @ INTERNET From: tparisi @ intervista.com ("Tony Parisi") @ INTERNET Date: 07/22/96 09:06:00 PM Subject: -No Subject- Hey, I received a reply from Gary Millrood. He's enthusiastic to move forward on the consortium front. I'd like you two to connect directly, and keep myself and Brian in the loop as necessary. We should broach this with the rest of the VAG as soon as possible. I would like them to be prepared, and not feel like there are any "backroom deals" being made here. (There aren't). Gary can be reached at Gary_Millrood@sbexpos.com or gmillrood@sbexpos.com Let's go! -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intervista Software Cyberspace Development Tony Parisi tparisi@intervista.com Chief Technical Officer http://www.intervista.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 09:02 AM 7/23/96 -0700, you wrote: >Will be here (my house) on Friday at 1 PM. Could you please join us? Unfortunately, the spec is taking more time than I planned. Can you do this without me? Sorry, rc (I really want to get the spec done by Siggraph!) -- Rikk Carey VRML Servant rikk@best.com 415-969-5910 VRML 2.0 Spec ----> http://vrml.sgi.com/moving-worlds > > I've set up a Web page to act as a planning resource for our SIGGRAPH meeting. > The URL is http://vag.vrml.org/ ? This has not changed in years, uhh, months ... ? wrong url? > ...as highly reliable pieces of machinery. I can phone from anywhere to anywhere, anytime. I want to do the same for e-mail. Think about that for a while, and you'll see how much farther the network revolution has yet to go. > Hey everybody, let's IPL! IPL the net! --linas Mark Have tried contacting you several times, alas with no luck. Am checking to see if you're still alive? -Pete How about a telephone conference at 11:45am on Monday July 29th? I will have Gary initiate the call. Please send me your telephone number. Barbara To: Gary_Millrood @ sbexpos.com (Gary Millrood) @ INTERNET cc: Barbara_Purvis @ sbexpos.com @ INTERNET From: mpesce @ sirius.com (Mark Pesce) @ INTERNET Date: 07/26/96 09:46:19 AM Subject: Re: -No Subject- Gary - Great. I hope we can do this on Monday, then. Preferrably in the late morning. Please let me know ASAP. Mark At 04:59 AM 1/27/96 EDT, you wrote: >Mark, I am forwarding this memo to my asist. Barbara Purvis, who will set up a >meeting on Friday. > >Thank you, > GM >To: Gary_Millrood @ sbexpos.com (Gary Millrood) @ INTERNET >cc: >From: mpesce @ sirius.com (Mark Pesce) @ INTERNET >Date: 07/23/96 09:39:08 PM >Subject: Re: -No Subject- > >Gary - > >We can talk either tomorrow (early afternoon is best) or Friday. >Take your pick. Phone or presence? (If presence, I'd ask you to come up to >the city to talk.) > >Mark > >At 11:34 PM 1/25/96 EDT, you wrote: >>Mark, why don't we set up a time this week or next to talk. Please contact me >>at your soonest convience to set up a time. In the mean time we are working >>swiftly to prepare a a rough first draft proposal for a VRML Association and >>Conference. >> I'm still up in the air whether I can make it to Siggraph. If not we will >>certainly hook up either next week, or the week after Siggraph. >> >> GM >>To: mpesce @ sirius.com @ INTERNET >>cc: gmillrood @ sbexpos.com @ INTERNET, blau @ intervista.com @ INTERNET >>From: tparisi @ intervista.com ("Tony Parisi") @ INTERNET >>Date: 07/22/96 09:06:00 PM >>Subject: -No Subject- >> >>Hey, >> >>I received a reply from Gary Millrood. He's enthusiastic to move >>forward on the consortium front. I'd like you two to connect directly, >>and keep myself and Brian in the loop as necessary. >> >>We should broach this with the rest of the VAG as soon as possible. I >>would like them to be prepared, and not feel like there are any >>"backroom deals" being made here. (There aren't). >> >> >>Gary can be reached at >> >> Gary_Millrood@sbexpos.com or gmillrood@sbexpos.com >> >>Let's go! >> >>-- >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Intervista Software >> Cyberspace Development >> >>Tony Parisi tparisi@intervista.com >>Chief Technical Officer http://www.intervista.com >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >----- >mpesce@netcom.com * http://www.hyperreal.com/~mpesce >mpesce@xs4all.nl * http://xs4all.nl/~mpesce (from Europe) > >"Chyx with vision packing a half a mil worth of high end hardware can be a >scary thing for the SEGA generation." - Celia Pearce > > > > > ----- mpesce@netcom.com * http://www.hyperreal.com/~mpesce mpesce@xs4all.nl * http://xs4all.nl/~mpesce (from Europe) "Chyx with vision packing a half a mil worth of high end hardware can be a scary thing for the SEGA generation." - Celia Pearce I understand your disappointment with the title, it is a misnomer. My recommendation is that you insist on veto power over any editing. This is a reasonable requirement. If mutual agreement can't be reached, one might well wonder whether the arrangement makes sense. Control over content we create is essential. Your daily SIGGRAPH OnLive thing sounds interesting. Perhaps that is worth mentioning during our panel? Although I give fair warning that any streaming protocol which does not support a multicast capability is broken, in my long-held opinion. Both unicast and multicast are needed. Hopefully I can make the distinction clear in the tech sig as a counterpoint to Mitra's insistence on server-based approaches. I am eager to see the Java API stabilize so we can work on a Java-based multicast socket interface. all the best, Don -- Don Brutzman Naval Postgraduate School, Code UW/Br Root 200 work 408.656.2149 Monterey California 93943-5000 USA fax 408.656.3679 Virtual worlds/underwater robots/Internet http://www.stl.nps.navy.mil/~brutzman