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

[Neil TREVETT <Neil.Trevett@3dlabs.com>]

Hi Miriam,

Don't stop now - we are almost agreeing!!
:)

>> The
problem is those of us outside don't see much of this at all. From time
to time I revisit the web3d site and am often surprised that there are
new working groups that I'd never heard of, whole new areas of spec, and
proposals, which were never announced on the big list.

You are right - we need much more clarity
on this - I definitely take this on-board.   See the reply to Brian
a few minutes ago..   As I discussed there I would prefer that detailed
discussions and roadmap decisions be taken by an *inclusive* membership
- but at a minimum the Consortium should have a clear and compelling roadmap
directions that is clearly communicated to the entire industry.  Miriam
- if we are failing to communicate to you - then I am sure almost no-one
gets it.  Our bad.  We can fix it.

Miriam - do you think we can overcome
any barriers to people like yourself joining?  If you are busy - you
can just lurk - and make sure we don't do anything crazy :)

>> The
problem comes when [companies] are given undue importance in the scheme
of things.

Miriam - I am genuinely not sure what
you mean by special status - at the moment a professional members has PRECISELY
the same rights as a corporate member.   The participation agreement
3.0 actually tries to give corporations SOME more rights - as at the moment
we have companies joining as individuals as they get precisely the same
benefits.  Can you tell me why you think companies are somehow being
pampered - I really want to understand to know what I am missing - or to
be able to set the record straight :)

>> surely
a group or individual joining the consortium would be most interested in
advancing the cause of web3d and that this should be their primary concern
in subscribing to it. If ... they are more interested in their own status
than the health of the language and surely VRML/X3D/the consortium doesn't
need them.

Any successful standard needs corporate
enlightened self-interest.  Companies have to be able to get a return
- but those that get it realize its easier to establish a market and THEN
fight for market share - rather than fight over the creation of an opportunity
in the first place.   We can harness corporate greed to make an  opportunity
for us all :)

>>  VRML/X3D/the
consortium can survive without any corporate sponsors if it has plenty
of users

I honestly don't believe that would
be true - there is not the concentration of users to create a self-organizing
community that could produce a specification roadmap - but I guess we can
agree to disagree on this as I am suggesting that we harness BOTH the power
of the community AND a Consortium to promote the cause.  One doesn't
have to be exclusive of the other.   

Do we have a chance to make it happen?
 Be honest :)

Neil

Miriam English <miriam@werple.net.au>
Sent by: owner-www-vrml@web3d.org

10/02/2004 06:43 PM

Please respond to
miriam@werple.net.au

To	Neil TREVETT <Neil.Trevett@3dlabs.com>, www-vrml <www-vrml@web3d.org>
cc
Subject	Re: [www-vrml] Tim BL Is Baffled, Too

Hi Neil,

Sorry, I should have made clearer in my post that I am not actually opposed
to companies becoming involved in VRML/X3D/the consortium. I actually applaud
efforts to lure such companies in. The problem comes when they are given
undue importance in the scheme of things. Here is a quick way to bring
their importance back into perspective: VRML/X3D/the consortium can survive
without any corporate sponsors if it has plenty of users, but it doesn't
matter how many corporate backers VRML/X3D/the consortium has, if the users
and authors don't know about VRML/X3D or don't want it then it is doomed.

I should also point out that I'm not actually opposed to the consortium
itself, though I know what I've written makes it look like I am. My fault.
What I am opposed to is simply the exclusion of the user-base and authors.

That brings me to the next point: exclusion. Most people inside the consortium
don't understand this feeling of exclusion. After all, they can see exactly
what is going on. They know what happening, they know when new stuff is
put up on web spaces, they know when new proposals are made for features,
and they know when calls are made for comments on the new features. The
problem is those of us outside don't see much of this at all. From time
to time I revisit the web3d site and am often surprised that there are
new working groups that I'd never heard of, whole new areas of spec, and
proposals, which were never announced on the big list. I bet they got announced
on an internal list... if they didn't then that may be less a problem with
inside/outside communication than general communication.

I come back to the point I made in my earlier post that surely a group
or individual joining the consortium would be most interested in advancing
the cause of web3d and that this should be their primary concern in subscribing
to it. If they want to be given special insider privileges then they are
more interested in their own status than the health of the language and
surely VRML/X3D/the consortium doesn't need them. Some will feel that companies
have to be given something special in return for their money, but they
already are: a language that could be a goldmine for them.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe development won't proceed without self-interest
from privileged corporate allies (though the vibrant open-source communities
seem to argue otherwise). Maybe opening it all up to those of us outside
will lose the few remaining companies in the inner development circle (though
I doubt it -- those who are still committed appear to be in it for the
long haul). Maybe opening up inner development decisions will cause it
all to degenerate into committee-hell (though I tend to think those involved
are self-selecting and self-stabilising and the rest become lurkers).

So how will the consortium attract fee-paying members if there is no special
insider-status? I have a LiveJournal account where I post my thoughts from
time to time
http://www.livejournal.com/users/miriam_e/
LiveJournal is an extraordinary company. They started as just one guy who
wrote his own blogging software. His friends saw what he'd done and asked
if he could let them use it too. It grew quickly and exponentially. Now
a couple of hundred thousand members use LiveJournal, and it is serviced
by several full-time staff, and fairly massive computing facilities. Paid
subscription is not required -- it is optional. And if you ask paying members
why they pay, their reason is almost invariably that they want to help
keep it going. True, paid memberships do offer extra capabilities, but
they are trivial, like being able to use more than one icon. All members,
paid or not, have access to all the system announcements and all the information.
When I have spare money I pay for a month or a year. I don't use any of
the extra capabilities; I just think it is a good idea to help something
I enjoy so much.

The biggest advantage of opening things up is that you get new blood. I
am a dinosaur. When I speak with kids now I am often overwhelmed -- they
are so goddamn smart!! Yet the consortium, in closing off the inner workings
of VRML/X3D from less wealthy people and students is ignoring the fresh
ideas and knowledge it needs to survive.

I wouldn't still be arguing the point if I didn't think there was some
hope, but I won't follow up this argument further here. The others on the
list must surely be getting tired of it, and I should be working. :)

Thanks for listening Neil. I honestly appreciate it.

Best wishes,

                
- Miriam


Neil TREVETT wrote:
> 
> Hi Miriam,
> 
> 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
> 
-- 
---------=---------=---------=---------=---------=---------=------
        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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
for list subscription/unsubscription,
go to http://www.web3d.org/cgi-bin/public_list_signup/lwgate/listsavail.html


ForwardSourceID:NT00024F36