Open Source Meeting/2007-10-18

From Second Life Wiki

Second Life Wiki > Open Source > Open Source Meeting/2007-10-18
Jump to: navigation, search

< Open Source Meeting


Open source meeting on 2007-10-18 - Thursday, 2pm PT.

Teleport to the Linden Open Source Project headquarters.


Agenda

  • Wiki too slow to use
  • Gigs Camera Patch
  • Prim Muting - How to do it?
  • Mark's VAG - Geometry and Physics
  • LLSD Notation Format, depricated?
  • Hierarchy/ Enchanced CSG, Future Plans?
  • Questions on Risk API participation... How do you get set up?

Transcript

  • [14:00] Squirrel Wood: Hello ^^
  • [14:00] Soft Linden: Hey hey hey!
  • [14:01] Rob Linden: the toobz in seattle are clogged today, so we'll see if I can stay connected here
  • [14:01] Squirrel Wood: wiki/jira take forever to load again
  • [14:02] Gigs Taggart: I've been trying to make the agenda for a while now
  • [14:02] Gigs Taggart: it's too slow
  • [14:02] Soft Linden: Yeah, the wiki's taking -forever- for me right now.
  • [14:02] Rob Linden: argh
  • [14:02] Gigs Taggart: I guess the wiki being too slow to use should be first on the agenda then :)
  • [14:02] Soft Linden: Last meeting I was in, took 5 minutes for a page to come up.
  • [14:02] Dale Glass: hiya :-)
  • [14:02] Soft Linden: Hey hey Dale!
  • [14:03] Rob Linden: I've found hitting reload/reclicking seems to fix things with this round of wiki flakeyness.
  • [14:03] Dale Glass: but that surely adds extra load
  • [14:03] Gigs Taggart: Well
  • [14:03] Rob Linden: it seems that there's some tcp-level problem where connections are getting stalled
  • [14:03] Gigs Taggart: here's the agenda in pastebin
  • [14:03] Gigs Taggart: [1]
  • [14:03] Gigs Taggart: I can't get the wiki to work at all
  • [14:03] Gigs Taggart: I put the wiki as the first item :)
  • [14:04] Soft Linden: Nice shot on #1, yeah :>
  • [14:04] Rob Linden: I'm beating up our current vendor for the wiki, and starting to shop around
  • [14:05] Rob Linden: the problem with MediaWiki is that once you get up above a certiain number of pageviews, it's not a simple setup anymore
  • [14:05] Burhop Piccard: Hey, I just show up to my first meeting and you already have me on the agenda.
  • [14:05] Gigs Taggart:  :)
  • [14:06] Burhop Piccard: You all must be masters of efficiency!
  • [14:06] Gigs Taggart: heh, no, I just panicked and threw together a few topics off the top of my head and a quick scan of the sldev list :)
  • [14:06] Squirrel Wood: I dare say that SVC-392 has been "upgraded" to havok 4 beta ...
  • [14:06] Gigs Taggart: the wiki wasn't cooperating at all
  • [14:07] Rob Linden: a good high-volume mediawiki setup has multiple front end boxes, squid cache(s), memcache, etc
  • [14:07] Gigs Taggart: Rob: at least we know it can scale... wikipedia manages it
  • [14:07] Burhop Piccard: wiki's back
  • [14:08] Rob Linden: anyone know of vendors with the skillset to manage a higher volume wiki?
  • [14:08] Whoops Babii: Hmmm... I bet we do at Sun :) I'd have to find you a contact.
  • [14:08] Gigs Taggart: freenode IRC would be good to ask
  • [14:09] Soft Linden: I'm sure MediaWiki has a mailing list we could ask on
  • [14:09] Gigs Taggart: or that
  • [14:09] Rob Linden: yeah, I should be more persistent in asking there
  • [14:09] Gigs Taggart: I'm sure mediawiki people will be happy to help get a major installation running well :)
  • [14:09] Gigs Taggart: good PR for them
  • [14:09] Rob Linden: well, they aren't looking for pr
  • [14:09] Dale Glass: Rob: maybe this could be useful? [2]
  • [14:09] Rob Linden: I looked through that
  • [14:09] Gigs Taggart: everyone wants good PR, even nonprofits :)
  • [14:10] Soft Linden: Do we have a summary of what we need? Something that describes the modified login mechanism and the level of traffic?
  • [14:11] Rob Linden: I actually know a bunch of the MediaWiki folks. Before joining LL, I was actually going to be in business around commercial MW opportunies, because no one seemed to be taking advantage of them
  • [14:11] Gigs Taggart: cool
  • [14:12] Rob Linden: well, cool except for the fact that I know there's not many people to go to
  • [14:12] Rob Linden:  :-/
  • [14:12] Gigs Taggart: heh
  • [14:12] Kooky Jetaime: ((Just an FYI, the restart just hit Grasmere, so its on its way))
  • [14:12] Gigs Taggart: LL is, at its heart, a major hosting service... why not move it back in house?
  • [14:12] Rob Linden: anyway....keep an eye out and let me know
  • [14:12] Soft Linden: Well, hopefully someone affiliated with Wikipedia is a little hungry, or if we're lucky is an SL fan.
  • [14:13] Rob Linden: Gigs, the resources we have in house are heads down on SL itself
  • [14:13] Soft Linden: It's not just the hosting. There's some customization and tuning needed for higher loads that you can't just throw hardware at.
  • [14:13] Rob Linden: next on the agenda
  • [14:14] Gigs Taggart: I'm just saying.. no free lunch and all. At some point it does make sense to just hire an expert to do it in house
  • [14:14] Gigs Taggart: sure
  • [14:14] Gigs Taggart: My patch :)
  • [14:14] Gigs Taggart: I don't know if anyone other than Richard has looked at it, but I'd like to push forward with it, I'm willing to add any constraints back into it that are considered critical.
  • [14:14] Gigs Taggart: I really really don't want to go back to the old code there.
  • [14:15] Squirrel Wood: So you have fixed it all ups? ^^
  • [14:15] Gigs Taggart: well, richard had some concerns that I didn't fully understand with it
  • [14:15] Rob Linden: Gigs: I think we're relying on Richard, since he's the expert for this area
  • [14:16] Gigs Taggart: that's cool, what's his linden name? Richard Linden?
  • [14:16] Rob Linden: yeah
  • [14:16] Gigs Taggart: alright
  • [14:17] Gigs Taggart: well I guess that's all to say about that, except if you understand what we are talking about and you think the constraint is out of line with user expections you might want to put your 2 cents in. :)
  • [14:17] Rob Linden: on the surface, it looks like a very cool patch
  • [14:17] Rob Linden: I'm assuming the "you" is everyone here, right?
  • [14:17] Gigs Taggart: yes
  • [14:18] Rob Linden: (everyone here, take note)
  • [14:18] Squirrel Wood: Mayhaps a short explanation of what you made work better?
  • [14:18] Gigs Taggart: sure
  • [14:18] Rob Linden: k....moving on?
  • [14:18] Gigs Taggart: Right now if you focus inside a hollow prim, it throws your camera out, that was the main motivation.
  • [14:18] Rob Linden: or do you wnat to explain?
  • [14:19] Rob Linden: (k....I'll shut up for a sec)
  • [14:19] Wyn Galbraith: cheers.
  • [14:19] Gigs Taggart: But it was also munging the camera focus point, which to me is unexpected an unnecessary
  • [14:19] Gigs Taggart: Richard disagrees but I don't fully understand his reasoning yet so I'm holding off judgement :)
  • [14:20] Gigs Taggart: anyway follow the thread if you are interested
  • [14:20] Rob Linden: maybe we could do a demo.....have a good prim for testing this?
  • [14:20] Gigs Taggart: yeah
  • [14:20] Harleen Gretzky: Where's the thread?
  • [14:20] Wyn Galbraith: It's a nasty problem when building if you hollow, cut and torture prims regularily.
  • [14:21] Kooky Jetaime: love that bug
  • [14:21] Gigs Taggart: ok so try to focus on the inside back
  • [14:21] Gigs Taggart: then pan with ctrl-alt
  • [14:21] Gigs Taggart: you'll notice it throws your camera out
  • [14:21] Wyn Galbraith: I thought it was my chipset until my neighbor pointed it out to me.
  • [14:22] Gigs Taggart: the problem is these constraints also cause a lot of that camera spinning behavior
  • [14:22] Gigs Taggart: so either way we go, I'd like to do it smarter
  • [14:22] Kooky Jetaime: gigs - its funny because they jump even with constraints disabled.
  • [14:22] Gigs Taggart: Kooky yeah the menu option to disable constraints does not disable the minimum constraints, only the maximum
  • [14:23] Wyn Galbraith: That spinning can make the sight wind up anywhere.
  • [14:23] Gigs Taggart: With my patch right now, your camera is not constrained by the target prim bounding box
  • [14:24] Gigs Taggart: you can orbit a surface regardless of what the rest of the prim looks like
  • [14:24] Gigs Taggart: you won't zoom through a surface though
  • [14:24] Kooky Jetaime: ok
  • [14:24] Kooky Jetaime: sounds like it'll be nice to see in use
  • [14:24] Gigs Taggart: well Richard has to be sold on it
  • [14:24] Gigs Taggart: this code is his baby :)
  • [14:25] Kooky Jetaime: gigs - send it to Nicholaz in November..
  • [14:25] Gigs Taggart: so I'm willing to make more changes to make it satisfy whatever use cases he's concerned with
  • [14:25] Kooky Jetaime: if it rocks even if Richard don't incorporate it in main, nick probably would
  • [14:25] Wyn Galbraith: I would love to see that fixed.
  • [14:25] Rob Linden: k....some other people weighing in on the list would be useful.
  • [14:25] Wyn Galbraith: That would end almost half of my blue screens while building.
  • [14:25] Squirrel Wood: anything that makes building less of a pain is good.
  • [14:26] Rob Linden: ok...so, should we move on?
  • [14:26] Gigs Taggart: sure
  • [14:26] Wyn Galbraith: Very true Squirrel.
  • [14:26] Rob Linden: Prim muting
  • [14:26] Morgaine Dinova: Greetings all
  • [14:26] Wyn Galbraith: Ah Kooky's bug?
  • [14:27] Rob Linden: I'm not sure....Gigs, is that what you were referring to?
  • [14:27] Kooky Jetaime: hmm I need to pull up the itin
  • [14:27] Gigs Taggart: Rob, well someone new asked about it
  • [14:27] Object: Hello,: Avatar!
  • [14:27] Wyn Galbraith: Hey Jason!
  • [14:27] Rob Linden: can someone copy the itinerary to the wiki?
  • [14:28] Gigs Taggart: I guess there just seems to be a lot of interest in prim muting
  • [14:28] Gigs Taggart: [3]
  • [14:28] Gigs Taggart: that bug documents a lot of it
  • [14:28] Gigs Taggart: I'm not sure where the code is, but supposedly Able has some code
  • [14:28] Gigs Taggart: hehe
  • [14:28] Morgaine Dinova: I'm here mainly for the VAG/VAT issue, as there seems to be some disagreement which I don't really understand yet.
  • [14:28] Wyn Galbraith: Oh this is different I think.
  • [14:28] Gigs Taggart: well then lets skip to that
  • [14:29] Kooky Jetaime: damn the wiki seems slowww
  • [14:29] Kooky Jetaime: wow. now it don't
  • [14:29] Gigs Taggart: yeah Rob the wiki is down again :)
  • [14:29] B: See: if you can mute me...
  • [14:29] C: See: if you can mute me...
  • [14:29] A: See: if you can mute me...
  • [14:29] Gigs Taggart: oh there it goes
  • [14:29] Kooky Jetaime: muted
  • [14:29] B: See: if you can mute me...
  • [14:29] C: See: if you can mute me...
  • [14:29] A: See: if you can mute me...
  • [14:29] B: See: if you can mute me...
  • [14:29] Morgaine Dinova: Wiki was working beautfully for half a day, I was fairly productive.
  • [14:30] C: See: if you can mute me...
  • [14:30] Gigs Taggart: screw it, it's slow again
  • [14:30] B: See: if you can mute me...
  • [14:31] C: See: if you can mute me...
  • [14:31] A: See: if you can mute me...
  • [14:31] B: See: if you can mute me...
  • [14:31] Squirrel Wood: so can you hear anything after muting the object?
  • [14:31] Harleen Gretzky: no
  • [14:31] C: See: if you can mute me...
  • [14:31] Gigs Taggart: no
  • [14:31] Squirrel Wood: (it changes its name)
  • [14:31] A: See: if you can mute me...
  • [14:31] Harleen Gretzky: even though the name changes it remains muted
  • [14:31] Gigs Taggart: it depends on if you mute it by name or uuid
  • [14:31] Gigs Taggart: pie menu is uuid
  • [14:31] B: See: if you can mute me...
  • [14:32] Wyn Galbraith: Interesting.
  • [14:33] Jason Swain: so does that mean an object A (muted) that rezzes anouther object b, would b be muted?
  • [14:33] Gigs Taggart: Jason, no I think rezzing a new object bypasses all mutes
  • [14:33] Kooky Jetaime: yep it does
  • [14:33] Squirrel Wood: new object, new uuid
  • [14:33] Gigs Taggart: you could keep rezzing new unmuted objects :)
  • [14:33] Gigs Taggart: don't tell the griefers
  • [14:33] Jason Swain: would there be a away to add that to the mute feature?
  • [14:33] Wyn Galbraith: But if you muted by name would the new one be muted?
  • [14:34] Gigs Taggart: Jason, very hard
  • [14:34] Turtle: Hello,: Avatar!
  • [14:34] Rob Linden: so what about this do we need to discuss with this set of people?
  • [14:34] Gigs Taggart: the VAG stuff?
  • [14:34] Gigs Taggart: Well I'd like to explain more about the intent of them.
  • [14:34] Rob Linden: ok.....I guess I got confused and thought the mute stuff was what the topic was
  • [14:34] Gigs Taggart: heh, I think we were just playing around :)
  • [14:34] Rob Linden: VAG: go for it
  • [14:35] Gigs Taggart: the question on the agenda was visibility mute anyway
  • [14:35] Gigs Taggart: The VAGs should represent the viewpoint of a group of stakeholders
  • [14:35] Gigs Taggart: Mark I think it's great that you want to start one, but I'm not sure about the focus you have choosen.
  • [14:35] Gigs Taggart: Does that represent the viewpoint of a group of stakeholders?
  • [14:35] Burhop Piccard: Yes... could be.
  • [14:36] Gigs Taggart: ok well as long as you can frame it that way
  • [14:36] Rob Linden: it's more an architectural area
  • [14:36] Morgaine Dinova: Gigs: there are now 3 active VAGs on the wiki
  • [14:36] Burhop Piccard: Hard to say.... it cam up a bit in the AWGroupies meeting.
  • [14:36] Gigs Taggart: Morgaine, cool, the wiki is so slow I haven't been able to keep up. :)
  • [14:36] Saijanai Kuhn: BTW, I just noticed. Everyone here is a member of AWGroupies...
  • [14:36] Gigs Taggart: saij: not I.
  • [14:36] Burhop Piccard: Obviously we want to get some VAGs going and I had some interest on the geometry side.
  • [14:36] Rob Linden: ...but it's an arch area that probably has a specific contingent (builders who rely on physics subtleties)
  • [14:37] Saijanai Kuhn: looks suspiciously at Gigs. Whats up with that?
  • [14:37] Kooky Jetaime: I'm not either Sai
  • [14:37] Gigs Taggart: Cool
  • [14:37] Wyn Galbraith: He's special ;)
  • [14:38] Rob Linden: anyway....what's to discuss here?
  • [14:38] Burhop Piccard: Gigs, I tried not to be too specific... more framework.... I know there are stakeholders with similar views. So if you want, you can consider what I have ther as a strawman.
  • [14:38] Gigs Taggart: Burhop that's cool, I just want to make sure the output is framed right.
  • [14:39] Rob Linden: (btw...can someone please put the agenda on the wiki?)
  • [14:39] Gigs Taggart: Rob: I keep trying but it keeps screwing up
  • [14:39] Kooky Jetaime: We can't get to the wiki :P
  • [14:39] Burhop Piccard: Yes. no problem. I'm flexible at this point.
  • [14:39] Kooky Jetaime: Agenda Point #1: Find a working Wiki
  • [14:39] Squirrel Wood: the wiki is refusing to cooperate
  • [14:39] Morgaine Dinova: Dzon is trying to make a point about VAG vs VAT, but I don't actually understand the point. As I see it, they're two sides of the same coin. No matter what the structure is, we're still going to be updating viewpoints. I don't understand the objection.
  • [14:39] Harleen Gretzky: working for me fine
  • [14:40] Morgaine Dinova: And I don't mind either way :-)
  • [14:40] Burhop Piccard: me either.
  • [14:40] Gigs Taggart: They need to be groups. They should have their own meetings, etc.
  • [14:40] Gigs Taggart: we can't operate as one huge group
  • [14:41] Saijanai Kuhn: actually, if you put calling cads in a folder, you can call an ad hoc IM group by right-clicking that card
  • [14:41] Rob Linden: everyone should feel free to form a subgroup to talk about specific architectural points
  • [14:41] Saijanai Kuhn: that folder
  • [14:41] Morgaine Dinova: I know the wiki is slightly under the weather atm, but the two other VAGs currently other than Burhop's are:
  • [14:41] Morgaine Dinova: [4]
  • [14:41] Saijanai Kuhn: we have a current limit of 25 fixed groups
  • [14:41] Morgaine Dinova: [5]
  • [14:41] Gigs Taggart: hmm
  • [14:42] Morgaine Dinova: And Burhop's is
  • [14:42] Morgaine Dinova: [6]
  • [14:42] Saijanai Kuhn: So the workaround is everone who has a desire to network in a vag should exchange calling cards I guess
  • [14:42] Gigs Taggart: That's really not how I imagined it. :)
  • [14:42] Gigs Taggart: If you all think this sort of organization works better though, I'm up for it
  • [14:42] Burhop Piccard: Rob - that thought occured to me too.
  • [14:42] Rob Linden: with respect to "groups", they don't have to be SL groups anyway. they can be groups that rendezvous on AW Groupies group chat or wherever
  • [14:43] Gigs Taggart: or in world meetings, or their own IRC
  • [14:43] Saijanai Kuhn: grup chat is certainly convenient
  • [14:43] Gigs Taggart: or whatever
  • [14:43] Morgaine Dinova: Rob: indeed
  • [14:43] Squirrel Wood: wb Wyn
  • [14:43] Burhop Piccard: Gigs, could you explain the differences you see?
  • [14:43] Gigs Taggart: Well, I'm trying to follow the IEEE architecture recommendations here
  • [14:43] Gigs Taggart: in that the groups would be groups of stakeholders, describing a viewpoint
  • [14:43] Wyn Galbraith: That was a surprise crash.
  • [14:44] Wyn Galbraith: Thanks
  • [14:44] Morgaine Dinova: That's as it is currently
  • [14:44] Gigs Taggart: so like... "People that sell prims without scripts in them" might be a "Modeling/Sclupting VAG"
  • [14:44] Gigs Taggart: those people have certain requirements
  • [14:44] Morgaine Dinova: Yep
  • [14:44] Squirrel Wood: so does that imply that I'm a nutcase VAG ?
  • [14:44] Burhop Piccard: Yes, so I did read the IEEE but I'm not proficient. What would you change?
  • [14:44] Morgaine Dinova: lol
  • [14:45] Burhop Piccard:  :-)
  • [14:45] Gigs Taggart: Well like I said, whatever works... This was just an idea. I'm not sure the VAGs that are there now represent specific stakeholder groups
  • [14:45] Gigs Taggart: that's my concern, for example Scalability... everyone wants that. :)
  • [14:45] Wyn Galbraith: has leave, "Seya all later gators."
  • [14:45] Burhop Piccard: Yes... but here is the problem.... you can spontaneously form the group and then do the wiki
  • [14:46] Gigs Taggart: I don't think that's a problem really
  • [14:46] Morgaine Dinova: But this particular Scalability VAG is an umbrella ... it actually says so :-)
  • [14:46] Burhop Piccard: You need some preliminary talk for people to see they have some common viewpoints.
  • [14:47] Gigs Taggart: well, it's however you all want to do it, I'm just saying this isn't what I envisioned :)
  • [14:47] Gigs Taggart: what I envisioned may very well not be workable.
  • [14:47] Morgaine Dinova: Exactly, ther is so much in common in such a vast area. It would be highly duplicated otherwise. It's just to make life easier for stakeholders in specialist areas.
  • [14:47] Burhop Piccard: No problem.... I'm just trying to get you to pick on me so I can make it better :-)
  • [14:47] Rob Linden: ok.....one thing I think should be a requirement for a VAG is someone committed to the success of the group to produce a useful outcome
  • [14:47] Burhop Piccard: I have ego to spare so some beat down would probably be good.
  • [14:48] Morgaine Dinova: Rob: recipe for success :-)
  • [14:48] Rob Linden: forming a "group" and calling it that on the wiki should mean that someone is signing up to make it work
  • [14:48] Gigs Taggart: yes, I think there are good things that would come from subgroups in any case
  • [14:48] Rob Linden: I'm seeing a couple red links there that should probably just be removed
  • [14:49] Burhop Piccard: So are you saing the VAG are the sub groups or that the VAGs will have subgroups?
  • [14:49] Gigs Taggart: no, the VAGs are the subgroups
  • [14:49] Rob Linden: additionally, if a VAG only has one member....it's not really a group
  • [14:50] Morgaine Dinova: Rob: the counterpoint to that though is that we don't want to turn anyone with good ideas away. I'd like to think that everyone can contribute, even if only in a small way ... the only thing they need commit it their insight.
  • [14:50] Burhop Piccard: I have several avatars :-) But yes, you need a certain mass.
  • [14:50] Burhop Piccard: Even less than 5 is not good.
  • [14:50] Rob Linden: Morgaine: don't you think it'd be confusing and disheartening to look at a list of 20 groups and find out that it's just one person who formed 5
  • [14:50] Rob Linden:  ?
  • [14:50] Gigs Taggart: Burhop I wouldn't say that.
  • [14:51] Gigs Taggart: I envision most of these groups having 4-10 people.
  • [14:51] Rob Linden: a person doesn't need to charter a group just to contribute an idea
  • [14:51] Burhop Piccard: Well, I would worry that one strong personality in a smmall group could create problems.
  • [14:51] Gigs Taggart: Burhop, yeah
  • [14:51] Burhop Piccard: So, yous 4-10 is probably good.
  • [14:51] Burhop Piccard: yous= yes
  • [14:52] Rob Linden: I like the IETF philosophy on this
  • [14:52] Squirrel Wood: too small is bad, too big as well. Size matters in this case
  • [14:52] Squirrel Wood: hello chmarr ^^
  • [14:52] Rob Linden: (regardless of the fact that they often don't follow through in practice)
  • [14:52] chmarr Walcott: yo
  • [14:52] Morgaine Dinova: Rob: I think it's just an expression of interest. Personally I don't see how I can "commit" (in the way you suggest) to more than 2 groups at most ... yet I will undoubtedly have technical points to make in other VAGs. I don't think we want to turn people away from helping, even if minimally.
  • [14:52] Rob Linden: the IETF idea is that a working group should be chartered with a specific set of deliverables and deadlines, then disbanded
  • [14:53] chmarr Walcott: what we talking about :)
  • [14:53] Rob Linden: Morgaine: why does someone need to form a group just to contribute an idea?
  • [14:53] Saijanai Kuhn: or even "belong" to a group
  • [14:53] Saijanai Kuhn: unless its for ongoing discussion
  • [14:53] chmarr Walcott: rob looks like my ex boss
  • [14:53] Morgaine Dinova: Rob: we're not talking about forming, but about enrolling. Who forms is pretty much irrelevant
  • [14:54] Rob Linden: Morgaine: why does someone need to enroll in a group just to contribute an idea?
  • [14:54] Gigs Taggart: See, this is why I wanted VAGs to not fall along these lines.
  • [14:54] Saijanai Kuhn: even a non-member could add something to the wiki. Kinda futile if they're not going to stick around and defend it, but...
  • [14:54] Burhop Piccard: I think the group brings some structure... regular meetings, documention. Otherwise, to who do you express your idea?
  • [14:54] Gigs Taggart: When you have groups like "scalability" then everyone does have a stake in that
  • [14:54] Gigs Taggart: That's why I didn't want to do it that way
  • [14:54] Gigs Taggart: I want groups to overlap a lot
  • [14:55] Morgaine Dinova: Rob: they don't in principle, in which case you support Dzon's idea of tasks. Yet you expressed support for Groups. Now you're confusing me :-)
  • [14:55] Soft's collar: chmarr rang Soft's bell.
  • [14:55] Gigs Taggart: a group should represent a group of stakeholders, ... so for the scalabilility example, every group would likely have scalability as a concern
  • [14:55] Gigs Taggart: the groups breaking down along the lines they are broken down now, creates that problem you are referring to morgaine
  • [14:56] chmarr Walcott: what type of groups are you meaning??
  • [14:56] Gigs Taggart: if we break them down by stakeholders with common concerns, then you shouldn't have the desire to belong to too many of them
  • [14:56] Gigs Taggart: oh WTF!
  • [14:56] Morgaine Dinova: Which problem? The problem I mentioned that Dzon was talking about is purely structural, and I don't see it as a problem.
  • [14:56] Kooky Jetaime: damn
  • [14:56] Rob Linden: I think it's ifne to form subgroups. I also think it should also be fine to cull out inactive groups
  • [14:56] Jason Swain: epps
  • [14:56] Kooky Jetaime: perfect timing
  • [14:56] Squirrel Wood: the same task being discussed over and over again in different groups instead of the one group focussed on it ?
  • [14:56] Gigs Taggart: Rod can you cancel that
  • [14:56] Gigs Taggart: Rob rather
  • [14:56] Gigs Taggart: Squirel, exactly!
  • [14:56] Whoops Babii: rolling reboots have been biting me all day.
  • [14:56] Kooky Jetaime: See y'all in Beaumont at Ben's
  • [14:56] Rob Linden: Gigs: I can't, actually
  • [14:56] Burhop Piccard: Is this "eat your own dog food?" :-)
  • [14:57] Gigs Taggart: the same issues will be discussed in many groups
  • [14:57] Gigs Taggart: from different viewpoints
  • [14:57] Gigs Taggart: that's the idea and the original intent
  • [14:57] Morgaine Dinova: Squirrel: well that's exacltly why we have these groups I thought ... to avoid the duplication. Which is why I don't see a problem.
  • [14:57] Gigs Taggart: so in that framework, a "scalability" group is wrong
  • [14:57] Soft Linden: I delayed the restart one hour.
  • [14:57] Saijanai Kuhn: huzzah
  • [14:57] Gigs Taggart: because every group should be discussing scalability
  • [14:57] Morgaine Dinova: Thanks Soft
  • [14:57] Gigs Taggart: in terms of their viewpoint
  • [14:57] Jason Swain: Well Done Soft ^^
  • [14:57] Rob Linden: oh....I guess I just didn't know how
  • [14:58] Rob Linden: good thing soft did
  • [14:58] Gigs Taggart: so it's not to avoid duplication, it's to encourage duplication :)
  • [14:58] Soft Linden: It's in a weird place. It's on the debug tab, not the region tab.
  • [14:58] Saijanai Kuhn: n nuts for you
  • [14:58] Burhop Piccard: So, you send up with a group that owns the specific sub-view than you can have 10000 avatars on an island?
  • [14:58] Morgaine Dinova: Gigs: other groups don't want to discuss scalability. Try to discuss scalability with Zha, for example. She continually says "Not my concern, it's in a black box behind services".
  • [14:58] chmarr Walcott: ~kidnaps soft n makes soft even softer by putting him into the washing machine with super fluffy wuffy conditioner~
  • [14:58] Gigs Taggart: we want to duplicate discussions of these issues, with each group discussing the issue from tehir unique view
  • [14:59] Gigs Taggart: Morgaine: every group will discuss scalability
  • [14:59] Morgaine Dinova: Gigs: they don';t want to!!!!
  • [14:59] Rob Linden: so....I'm going to take a rather hands-off approach to groups, though the one thing I want to avoid is sprawling things out too far
  • [14:59] Gigs Taggart: Burhop: you may well have a VAG for "live events"
  • [14:59] Rob Linden: I hope we don't create confusion by having more groups than there are people to join them
  • [14:59] Burhop Piccard: Gigs: good example.
  • [15:00] Jason Swain: hops of to Benjamin Lindens hour *waves*
  • [15:00] chmarr Walcott: any news about the mega prim situation??
  • [15:00] Morgaine Dinova: Gigs: we tried. We had immense arguments, because some people refused to even entertain scalability. That's why we brought in IEEE-1471.
  • [15:00] Gigs Taggart: VAG is a way to use IEEE-1471
  • [15:00] Morgaine Dinova: I agree, and it's a great idea for that
  • [15:00] Gigs Taggart: I just think we need to be careful to frame the groups along stakeholder lines, not architectural issue lines
  • [15:00] Gigs Taggart: because if we don't, then it does create the problem you mentioned
  • [15:00] Morgaine Dinova: These are stakeholder lines.
  • [15:01] Gigs Taggart: where your stake dictates you participate in every group!
  • [15:01] Rob Linden: k...before we go, two things
  • [15:01] Rob Linden: one: need a volunteer to put together agenda next week
  • [15:02] Rob Linden: anyone
  • [15:02] Rob Linden: anyone
  • [15:02] Rob Linden: anyone
  • [15:02] Rob Linden: anyone
  • [15:03] Gigs Taggart: come on guys, I've done it twice already in 3 weeks :)
  • [15:03] Morgaine Dinova: I'm a newcomer at this event, don't even know what's normally discussed.
  • [15:04] Soft Linden: If nobody's volunteering, I can put out an old-style call for items next Tuesday.
  • [15:05] Morgaine Dinova: Gigs, let's discuss the previous topic after the meeting, as I'd like to understand the problem you see,
  • [15:05] Gigs Taggart: ok
  • [15:05] Saijanai Kuhn: has to scurry off to Benjamin's as well
  • [15:05] Soft Linden: Rob's gone missing from IRC - I think he crashed.
  • [15:05] Soft Linden: er lost net
  • [15:05] Morgaine Dinova: Oh, Dzon is here?
  • [15:06] Rob Linden: hi all...did we get a volunteer?
  • [15:06] Gigs Taggart: no
  • [15:07] Soft Linden: Nobody so far - I can put out a call for items on Tuesday.
  • [15:07] Rob Linden: k. well, we just won't meet next week if there isn't an agenda
  • [15:08] Morgaine Dinova: Is this an office hours?
  • [15:08] Burhop Piccard: Yes, Robs.
  • [15:08] Rob Linden: it sort of functions as that, but given how many people show up, there needs to be an agenda
  • [15:08] Soft Linden: Sure, Morgaine. It's generally a time to wrap up topics that have been bouncing around on the sldev mailing list. Open source-related.
  • [15:08] Morgaine Dinova: Sorry, was given slurl and wasn't even sure to where, hehe. Thanks :-)
  • [15:09] Burhop Piccard: My fault.
  • [15:09] Burhop Piccard: I always try to bring my Posse :-)
  • [15:09] Burhop Piccard: Posse = Stakeholders
  • [15:09] Gigs Taggart: hehe
  • [15:09] Morgaine Dinova: Rob needs a Cat Herder tag :-)
  • [15:10] Rob Linden: could someone give me the past 10 minutes in email (robla@lindenlab.com) or notecard?

Personal tools