Thanks for the thoughtful reply - I
value this dialog to see if we can genuinely figure out how to get things
working better for all.. Don't worry - not taking anything you say
personally - we NEED constructive criticism if we are going to improve
:)
>> Unfortunately
this involved chasing the corporate dollar and being sensitive to the needs
of their corporate allies.
The community's distrust of corporate
members goes back a long time - I think it has its roots in the nature
of VRML's early days. I strongly believe however we need committed
corporate participation in this market - else we are just a bunch of hobbyists.
It is a key role of the Consortium to enable and encourage such corporate
participation. Of course companies have a simple goal - make money.
That means they need to get short-term value from their membership
- and in the longer term to effectively build markets. Enabling
that does NOT have to mean we disenfranchise the community. If we
have (inadvertently) disenfranchised the community - then that's what we
need to fix.
>> In
giving the corporate sponsors value for their money (an inside view, extra
influence over development, a closed mailing list, and other special treats)
I agree this is a common view of the
Consortium from outside. I think we have made a couple of mis-steps
here - but I think overall it is not an accurate reflection of the
way things are - let me try and explain my perspective.. There
is nothing in the current structure of the Consortium that provides any
insider privileges for creating specifications. *Any* member can
participate in working groups - an individual has the same voice as a multi-billion
dollar corporation and I have often seen professional members strongly
influencing a debate.
In practice - I think a couple of the
working groups have had "editor" lists - where some detailed
spec decisions were made separately from the complete working group.
These originated for logistical reasons - but they should not exist as
they create this kind of perception and process problem. At the last
board meeting - the board re-committed to a consistent working group process
- one internal list for all discussions - and an external list for outreach
and feedback. Overall though I have to say there have been strong
efforts to outreach for feedback - but it has not always worked out - probably
partly because of these perception issues Bottom line - the Consortium
needs re-ensure that due process is being followed - and being seen to
be followed.
>> The
idea of paying money to something which helps to keep web3d away from newcomers
doesn't make sense to me.
We do not want to keep away newcomers
- we have tried our best to outreach - obviously we are not doing a very
good job. That's why we need you Miriam - you can help us do better
here. Be aware though - currently the Consortium is starved of corporate
membership so we do not have a large marketing budget (our current cash
on hand is $450) - so our options are pretty limited until we manage
to build an upward spiral of company and community participation.
>> I've
heard again and again the idea put forward that the secrecy is to protect
against sneaky IP attacks, but that really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
I have to disagree - we need to be smarter
in how we organize ourselves so we don't create standards for this market
that turn out to IP encumbered. But this is the reason our membership
threshold is so low - there is no barrier to individuals and companies
coming inside to the safe area.
>> I wrote
a wishlist of features I'd like to see in VRML many years ago. Most of
the list still stands -- only a few have been implemented in current X3D.
In the end - decisions get made by those
that show up. It pains me that X3D is not getting the benefit of
your insights and experience.
The big irony for me is that the Consortium
has created this perception that we are this big-industry evil (but at
least we are not an unmitigated evil :) ) organization - that is a slave
to corporate interests. The reality is that we are starving for
corporate participation - and we are still here through the determination
of a few individuals. But I can tell you with absolute certainty
- all those individuals would LOVE to have wider participation so we could
all enjoy a little more business and a little less determination :)
But that's all water under the bridge.
What we need now is to figure out how to take things to the next
level looking forward. We NEED more corporate involvement. We
NEED the participation of the community - and we NEED dialog like this
so we can slowly break down any mis-trust and mis-understandings so both
community and companies can work productively together.
I am keen to keep this dialog going
- and offer an olive-branch between Consortium and community. Imagine
how good it could be Miriam, if you and all like you were to feel engaged
and were empowered to help create and improve the standards, products and
tools that you need. There is no reason that can't happen.
Neil
Miriam English <miriam@werple.net.au>
10/01/2004 10:11 PM
Please respond to
miriam@werple.net.au
To
Neil TREVETT <Neil.Trevett@3dlabs.com>
cc
Subject
Re: [www-vrml] Tim BL Is
Baffled, Too
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.
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.
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.
Viv recently offered to pay for me to become a member of the consortium,
but I declined. The idea of paying money to something which helps to keep
web3d away from newcomers doesn't make sense to me.
I've heard again and again the idea put forward that the secrecy is to
protect against sneaky IP attacks, but that really doesn't stand up to
scrutiny. Exposing all to the wider community is the best insurance against
sneaky IP attacks. Cloaking everything in secrecy would only make them
harder to fight. And everything in VRML/X3D is old technology anyway. I
wrote a wishlist of features I'd like to see in VRML many years ago. Most
of the list still stands -- only a few have been implemented in current
X3D. Heck, X3D still hasn't caught up with Contact.
I'm not saying that the consortium is an unmitigated evil. If that was
the case it would have folded shortly after its creation. Of course it
does good things for web3d -- it is filled with lots of smart, good people.
I just think it shouldn't have walled itself off from its base.
On your other points I totally agree. We need to work out where the future
of 3d lies. At various times in the past I've thought I understood... but
now I'm not so sure. Now all I want is concise tools that are easy to use
that I can build upon economically. I would emphasise the words "build
upon". I tire of constantly having to recode the same old thing over
and over again. Life is too short for that.
Again, I'm sorry that my comments often sound like I'm attacking the people.
I'm not. Many of the people in the consortium are up there with those humans
I most admire.
Best wishes,
- Miriam
Neil TREVETT wrote:
>
> I am fascinated (and disappointed) that several times on this thread
the
> Web3D Consortium is held up as an inscrutably closed and aloof
> organization..
>
> Miriam >> It is great that they advanced VRML while the
consortium
> stayed behind closed doors [and] "stole VRML"
> Clayton>> [The Consortium should] Help raise that tentpole
instead of
> leaning on a shovel and nodding its head :|
>
> We are about to re-write the Consortium participation framework (this
> will be Consortium 3.0) and so I would like to try and understand
the
> root cause of this perception. This is not a combative
email - and I
> am not arguing that the perception exists - I am just interested to
see
> whether anything is fixable.. Open to any and all feedback and
> criticism - but please keep it constructive and non-personal :) (ducks)
>
> *My* perception is that the Consortium could not open its doors any
> wider. We have individual as well and academic and corporate
> memberships, any working group is open to any member, we have erred
on
> the side of IP recklessness in conducting much of our business in
the
> open - all of which go far beyond the typical industry consortium's
> attempts to outreach to the grass-roots. The Consortium
is kept alive
> by normal people from the community that volunteer time and effort.
and
> push things forward in spite of the odds.
>
> So - what more can we do to engage the community? I would love
to see
> people with the passion and skills of Miriam and Clayton join the
> Consortium and help drive things.
>
> ------
>
> Getting back to the bafflement question - I agree with comments that
> lack of interoperability is a big problem - but I don't think its
the
> root cause.. IMO the root cause of the "3D Chasm"
(no widespread use
> of 3D between design professionals and gamers) is that no-one has
found
> a way of using 3D to provide an application that is GENUINELY USEFUL
to
> more than a very narrow market. Its not just Web3D -
there is no
> widespread use of 3D on the desktop either - other than design and
games.
>
> Until we find a compelling use for 3D that "normal" people
care about
> then we will be in this "before the chasm" state. No
real money, a
> cash-starved Consortium surviving on volunteerism, a frustrated
> community, spotty 3D support on non-gamer systems and no REAL financial
> reason to fix the interoperability problem..
>
> But I am optimistic that someone, somewhere will make 3D truly useful.
> I think that the Longhorn (and OS X) desktop becoming 3D will spur
> innovation in this field of using 3D - which will hopefully spill
over
> in Web3D.. Just as the original Windows (and MAC) liberated
us from
> command-line thinking and made us think of how to use a GUI effectively
> in applications.
>
> Until then we should recognize we are in a pre-chasm state:
> - gear our businesses (and standards) to make money from vertical
niches
> - not widespread deployment (unless we are in games)
> - search for the beach-head applications that will let us cross the
chasm
> - not bitch at each other 'coz we haven't found the beach-head
> application yet. Its no-ones fault. We are such a small
community - we
> should at least be working together to keep the things moving forward
as
> best we can until 3D becomes pervasive - and I believe it will.
>
> Neil
>
> Neil Trevett
> Senior Vice President Market Development, 3Dlabs
> President, Web3D Consortium
> neil.trevett@3dlabs.com www.3dlabs.com
>
--
---------=---------=---------=---------=---------=---------=------
How I wish I could enumerate PI easily
3. 1 4 1 5
9 2 6
---------=---------=---------=---------=---------=---------=------
http://werple.net.au/~miriam
My live Journal page http://www.livejournal.com/users/miriam_e/