RE: [www-vrml] Tim BL Is Baffled, Too

["Tony Parisi" <tparisi@mediamachines.com>]

Hi Miriam,

I'm sorry but there are few things in here that don't make sense to me.

> 
> Hi Neil,
> 
> I have to say that the consortium has opened up its doors somewhat more
> recently. I'm glad, and hope it continues to open up further.
>

Recently? It's been wide open to anybody with $100US for four or five years
now.
 
> Please understand that when I am critical of the consortium I am annoyed
> at the idea and the result; not the people. I know the people who are
> involved in the consortium thought (and generally still think) they're
> doing the right thing. They are good people who are honestly interested in
> getting the best for web3d. Unfortunately this involved chasing the
> corporate dollar and being sensitive to the needs of their corporate
> allies. In giving the corporate sponsors value for their money (an inside
> view, extra influence over development, a closed mailing list, and other
> special treats) they effectively closed out the main hope for VRML: the
> users and authors and students.
>

First off, there has been very little to date that has been closed off. Up
until a certain company came along two years ago and created the first-ever
members-only dynamic, Web3D had never excluded anybody from the dialog.

Second, there is a fallacy here about process. To think that hundreds of
users, authors and students you cite can *design a system* together is quite
naïve. It just doesn't work that way. The broader group can be deeply
involved in defining requirements and reviewing designs all throughout the
process, but the actual design can only be done by a *very small* group. In
a perfect world, that's 1-5 people. With working groups and open process, it
tends to be double that size. But beyond size, that the process simply
becomes unmanageable.

(My opinion here) If anything, Web3D has had too many cooks and that has
resulted in some weird crap in X3D. If it was back in the day when we had a
VAG-- 8 of us, still 3 too many IMO-- X3D would have been done two years
sooner. But yes, the larger community should be involved throughout that
process in several ways. And with open source widely available the broad
community can help with implementations and tools in a way that wasn't
possible back in the early VRML days.

So, I guess I disagree not only with the assessment about how open
everything has been, but also the outcome of that.
 
> I have never understood why a corporate sponsor wouldn't see belonging to
> the consortium as a good in itself without the need for special insider
> status. Surely they are there to help achieve web3d, and that is its own
> best reward. By including the wider community they can only enhance that
> aim.
>

I couldn't agree more. But I think only certain vendors have felt that way.
 
I agree with your other points. But all I can say is that I think your focus
is misplaced and your energy would be better spent building solutions upon
what we have already done. It's not perfect but it's darn good (as good as
*any* proprietary solution out there) and at this point there shouldn't be
anything holding you back.

Except those darn authoring tools. Why can't anybody get those right? Well,
hang on for another six months. The tool situation will improve
dramatically. You'll see.

Tony

[remainder snipped]




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
for list subscription/unsubscription,
go to http://www.web3d.org/cgi-bin/public_list_signup/lwgate/listsavail.html