Everything that has a beginning has an end

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Everything that has a beginning has an end

johannes
Dear Justin,

Thank  you for your work and your time.  You've been a generous friend and
colleague.  Your reasoned approach to problem solving and your gentle touch
with personal issues were (and I'm sure will remain) reassuring to all of
those who will encounter you.

Best wishes,

Chris

George Mason University
Fairfax, VA

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
[hidden email]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 8:00 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Opensim-dev Digest, Vol 17, Issue 13

Send Opensim-dev mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Opensim-dev digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Everything that has a beginning has an end (ssm2017)
   2. Re: Everything that has a beginning has an end (Butch Arnold)
   3. Re: Everything that has a beginning has an end (Fly Man)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 21:56:41 +0200
From: ssm2017 <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Everything that has a beginning has an end
Message-ID:
        <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Thank you a lot Justin for your implication in the project. You were very
helpfull and available to everyone even for non devs. You are a kind of
person who showed us a way to be opened to others. Good luck for your new
projects.
Le 9 ao?t 2015 20:38, "Justin Clark-Casey" <[hidden email]> a
?crit :

> Hi folks,
>
> As some of you may have noticed, my last OpenSimulator commit was in
> May, and before that in March.  I have also not been on the mailing
> list or responsive to personal e-mails, for which I apologise.
>
> Unfortunately, for various reasons (some of which I'm still trying to
> work out, to be honest) my motivation to work in this area has gone away.
> Perhaps it's just the normal passage of time and evolving interests -
> it has been 8 years after all!
>
> I'm now working in the area of data integration for genetics and
> synthetic biology, an even more insanely complex system and perhaps
> ultimately frustrating since you can't just go and code an organism
> (at least, not yet).  We shall see.
>
> I do hope to keep up with the mailing lists and e-mail to this
> account, at least much better than recently.  However, although I
> remain a core committer, at least for now, in the immediate future
> code commits from me will be extremely sparse.  I will also probably
> not be reviewing code changes in general.
>
> I am also resigning with immediate effect as president of Overte,
> which is going away as a formal legal organization anyway (see other
> e-mails for more details on that).
>
> It's been a wild 8 years and I wouldn't have it any other way.  Huge
> thanks to everybody who has supported OpenSimulator and me personally
> in that time.  I wish you all the best and I'm sure OpenSimulator and
> the Metaverse in general will have a great future
>
> I made a blog post at [1] those this is pretty much what I said above.
>
> No flowers.
>
> [1]
> http://justincc.org/blog/2015/08/09/everything-that-has-a-beginning-ha
> s-an-end/
>
> --
> Justin Clark-Casey (justincc)
> OSVW Consulting
> http://justincc.org
> http://twitter.com/justincc
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20150809/31fd5da
a/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:35:37 -0400
From: Butch Arnold <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Everything that has a beginning has an end
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Hi Justin,

I wish you the best.. thank you for all of your contributions to this
project.
Thank you for the many questions you've answered for me and the help you've
provided over the years.

Hope to still see you around from time to time.

Terry Ford
aka: Butch Arnold




On 8/9/2015 2:38 PM, Justin Clark-Casey wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> As some of you may have noticed, my last OpenSimulator commit was in
> May, and before that in March.  I have also not been on the mailing
> list or responsive to personal e-mails, for which I apologise.
>
> Unfortunately, for various reasons (some of which I'm still trying to
> work out, to be honest) my motivation to work in this area has gone
> away.  Perhaps it's just the normal passage of time and evolving
> interests - it has been 8 years after all!
>
> I'm now working in the area of data integration for genetics and
> synthetic biology, an even more insanely complex system and perhaps
> ultimately frustrating since you can't just go and code an organism
> (at least, not yet).  We shall see.
>
> I do hope to keep up with the mailing lists and e-mail to this
> account, at least much better than recently.  However, although I
> remain a core committer, at least for now, in the immediate future
> code commits from me will be extremely sparse.  I will also probably
> not be reviewing code changes in general.
>
> I am also resigning with immediate effect as president of Overte,
> which is going away as a formal legal organization anyway (see other
> e-mails for more details on that).
>
> It's been a wild 8 years and I wouldn't have it any other way. Huge
> thanks to everybody who has supported OpenSimulator and me personally
> in that time.  I wish you all the best and I'm sure OpenSimulator and
> the Metaverse in general will have a great future
>
> I made a blog post at [1] those this is pretty much what I said above.
>
> No flowers.
>
> [1]
> http://justincc.org/blog/2015/08/09/everything-that-has-a-beginning-ha
> s-an-end/
>



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:37:03 +0200
From: Fly Man <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Everything that has a beginning has an end
Message-ID:
        <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Goodmorning,

Many will remember you as 1 of the many people that worked on Opensim but to
us, the people that got to meet you in person, you were a person that made
Opensim what it has become today.

You will be missed and I hope OSGrid will name 1 of their Portals in honour
of all the work you did.

Thanks for all the work you did in the past 8 years and best described by an
old Dutch saying:

"There is a time of arriving and a time of leaving. And the time of leaving
has arrived for me"

PS: *So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish*



2015-08-11 0:35 GMT+02:00 Butch Arnold <[hidden email]>:

> Hi Justin,
>
> I wish you the best.. thank you for all of your contributions to this
> project.
> Thank you for the many questions you've answered for me and the help
> you've provided over the years.
>
> Hope to still see you around from time to time.
>
> Terry Ford
> aka: Butch Arnold
>
>
>
>
> On 8/9/2015 2:38 PM, Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> As some of you may have noticed, my last OpenSimulator commit was in
>> May, and before that in March.  I have also not been on the mailing
>> list or responsive to personal e-mails, for which I apologise.
>>
>> Unfortunately, for various reasons (some of which I'm still trying to
>> work out, to be honest) my motivation to work in this area has gone away.
>> Perhaps it's just the normal passage of time and evolving interests -
>> it has been 8 years after all!
>>
>> I'm now working in the area of data integration for genetics and
>> synthetic biology, an even more insanely complex system and perhaps
>> ultimately frustrating since you can't just go and code an organism
>> (at least, not yet).  We shall see.
>>
>> I do hope to keep up with the mailing lists and e-mail to this
>> account, at least much better than recently.  However, although I
>> remain a core committer, at least for now, in the immediate future
>> code commits from me will be extremely sparse.  I will also probably
>> not be reviewing code changes in general.
>>
>> I am also resigning with immediate effect as president of Overte,
>> which is going away as a formal legal organization anyway (see other
>> e-mails for more details on that).
>>
>> It's been a wild 8 years and I wouldn't have it any other way. Huge
>> thanks to everybody who has supported OpenSimulator and me personally
>> in that time.  I wish you all the best and I'm sure OpenSimulator and
>> the Metaverse in general will have a great future
>>
>> I made a blog post at [1] those this is pretty much what I said above.
>>
>> No flowers.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://justincc.org/blog/2015/08/09/everything-that-has-a-beginning-h
>> as-an-end/
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20150810/5e59a0a
2/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


End of Opensim-dev Digest, Vol 17, Issue 13
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Design Review (UNCLASSIFIED)

Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Good Morning Everyone,  we believe it would be a great idea to begin holding
design review meetings with the OS developers.  I'd like to discuss with you
our development roadmap and timelines.  We have a tight schedule, and now
that we have working stats collection in place, we can begin refinement of
the simulator to enhance performance.  The PhysX module is almost ready for
prime time and we would like to go over it with you before submitting the
patch.

I am aware that you sometimes meet, but I don't know where/when at this
time.  We have 9 members of the MOSES team on this effort, would you like us
to come to you?  We could host you on the MOSES grid if you'd rather come
there.

Lots of progress is being made and we'd like to fall into a comfortable
groove so that development can continue at an efficient pace.

Looking forward to your feedback.

v/r -doug

Douglas Maxwell
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
(c) (407) 242-0209



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

smime.p7s (7K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Design Review (UNCLASSIFIED)

Diva Canto
Hi Doug and everyone working for Doug,

In OpenSim, design is something that happens continuously and in closed loop with implementation.

We don't have scheduled meetings, because that would be pretty much impossible to set up given all other commitments that people have and time zones where people live.


In order to support continuous design/implementation, we meet "continuously" in the IRC #opensim-dev channel -- that's our large, open, perpetually on, meeting room. If you login there, chances are you will find a critical mass of us also logged in. Even when we can't participate, we will see the chat log later on, especially if our names have been mentioned, because IRC clients have visual cues when someone mentions certain keywords of interest to us. When that happens, we usually ping back. And even when we are logged off when important conversations happen, someone will copy-paste the chat when we join. So, all in all, much better than a scheduled meeting.

Having said that, the best time periods to get critical mass on any day of the week are probably 9am to 9pm PST. And if you really want to make sure certain of us are there, send those people an email or PM asking if they can make themselves available at a certain date/time.

Looking forward to seeing many more of you there, (please do join!)
Diva / Crista

On 8/10/2015 7:57 AM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) wrote:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Good Morning Everyone,  we believe it would be a great idea to begin holding
design review meetings with the OS developers.  I'd like to discuss with you
our development roadmap and timelines.  We have a tight schedule, and now
that we have working stats collection in place, we can begin refinement of
the simulator to enhance performance.  The PhysX module is almost ready for
prime time and we would like to go over it with you before submitting the
patch.

I am aware that you sometimes meet, but I don't know where/when at this
time.  We have 9 members of the MOSES team on this effort, would you like us
to come to you?  We could host you on the MOSES grid if you'd rather come
there.

Lots of progress is being made and we'd like to fall into a comfortable
groove so that development can continue at an efficient pace.

Looking forward to your feedback.

v/r -doug

Douglas Maxwell
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
(c) (407) 242-0209



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE




_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Design Review (UNCLASSIFIED)

Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Thanks for the quick reply, Christa.  We currently have 8 developers on the
MOSES team dedicated to this effort.  I've set an aggressive schedule and
dedicated finite resources.  The purpose is to have the MOSES grid modified
in such a way that can support experimentation and deployment schedules.
With respect to experimentation, we plan to meet certain publication
deadlines for the spring/summer conferences and need the PhysX module in
place by the end of Sept. to support data collection in the Fall.  We have
also made a commitment to our colleagues at NVidia to support a speaking
engagement in late Nov, which means we need preliminary data ASAP.

With respect to the deployment schedules, I would like to have stable MOSES
prototypes available for our human performance evaluation work by January.

Thus far the IRC route has had moderate success.  Recently we had an issue
where guidance from one developer conflicted with guidance from another,
resulting in us needing to re-code part of a patch.  Our schedule cannot
tolerate too many of these issues.

I've made it clear to the MOSES team that they are to consult with the OS
devs and make every effort possible to ensure the code we submit will be
accepted.  Currently the acceptance process is quite subjective and we are
struggling to figure out how to provide meaningful contributions.

Lastly, I've asked the members of the MOSES team to introduce themselves to
this list so that you'll know who you are dealing with on the IRC and in the
grids.

v/r -doug

Dr. Douglas Maxwell
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
(c) (407) 242-0209



-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Diva Canto
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 11:49 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Design Review (UNCLASSIFIED)

Hi Doug and everyone working for Doug,

In OpenSim, design is something that happens continuously and in closed loop
with implementation.

We don't have scheduled meetings, because that would be pretty much
impossible to set up given all other commitments that people have and time
zones where people live.

In order to support continuous design/implementation, we meet "continuously"
in the IRC #opensim-dev channel -- that's our large, open, perpetually on,
meeting room. If you login there, chances are you will find a critical mass
of us also logged in. Even when we can't participate, we will see the chat
log later on, especially if our names have been mentioned, because IRC
clients have visual cues when someone mentions certain keywords of interest
to us. When that happens, we usually ping back. And even when we are logged
off when important conversations happen, someone will copy-paste the chat
when we join. So, all in all, much better than a scheduled meeting.

Having said that, the best time periods to get critical mass on any day of
the week are probably 9am to 9pm PST. And if you really want to make sure
certain of us are there, send those people an email or PM asking if they can
make themselves available at a certain date/time.

Looking forward to seeing many more of you there, (please do join!) Diva /
Crista

On 8/10/2015 7:57 AM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) wrote:


        Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
        Caveats: NONE
       
        Good Morning Everyone,  we believe it would be a great idea to begin
holding
        design review meetings with the OS developers.  I'd like to discuss
with you
        our development roadmap and timelines.  We have a tight schedule,
and now
        that we have working stats collection in place, we can begin
refinement of
        the simulator to enhance performance.  The PhysX module is almost
ready for
        prime time and we would like to go over it with you before
submitting the
        patch.
       
        I am aware that you sometimes meet, but I don't know where/when at
this
        time.  We have 9 members of the MOSES team on this effort, would you
like us
        to come to you?  We could host you on the MOSES grid if you'd rather
come
        there.
       
        Lots of progress is being made and we'd like to fall into a
comfortable
        groove so that development can continue at an efficient pace.
       
        Looking forward to your feedback.
       
        v/r -doug
       
        Douglas Maxwell
        Science and Technology Manager
        Virtual World Strategic Applications
        U.S. Army Research Lab
        Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
        (c) (407) 242-0209
       
       
       
        Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
        Caveats: NONE
       
       

         
       
        _______________________________________________
        Opensim-dev mailing list
        [hidden email]
        http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

smime.p7s (7K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Design Review (UNCLASSIFIED)

Dahlia Trimble
In reply to this post by Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
There is a weekly developer meeting on Tuesdays at 11:00 am PDT in Wright Plaza on OSGrid. It hasn't been attended by all core developers for a few years but usually there are several of us that regularly attend. OSGrid has the advantage of simple registration, relative popularity, and being on the Hypergrid and many people have access. This may serve as a possible forum for your project although in recent years it seems to have evolved more into a support forum more than a development forum. If it is deemed unsatisfactory I would still suggest a location on OSGrid for no other reason than the ease of access. I do think IRC meetings would suffice though.

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) <[hidden email]> wrote:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Good Morning Everyone,  we believe it would be a great idea to begin holding
design review meetings with the OS developers.  I'd like to discuss with you
our development roadmap and timelines.  We have a tight schedule, and now
that we have working stats collection in place, we can begin refinement of
the simulator to enhance performance.  The PhysX module is almost ready for
prime time and we would like to go over it with you before submitting the
patch.

I am aware that you sometimes meet, but I don't know where/when at this
time.  We have 9 members of the MOSES team on this effort, would you like us
to come to you?  We could host you on the MOSES grid if you'd rather come
there.

Lots of progress is being made and we'd like to fall into a comfortable
groove so that development can continue at an efficient pace.

Looking forward to your feedback.

v/r -doug

Douglas Maxwell
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
(c) <a href="tel:%28407%29%20242-0209" value="+14072420209">(407) 242-0209



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Design Review (UNCLASSIFIED)

Melanie-2
I see IRC as the way to go because running a heavyweight,
screen-intensive client doesn't fit my workflow, therefore my
attendance of in world meetings is nonexistent. I don't believe an
in world environment is required for the topics the MOSES meetings
will be about.

- Melanie

On 11/08/2015 02:08, Dahlia Trimble wrote:

> There is a weekly developer meeting on Tuesdays at 11:00 am PDT in Wright
> Plaza on OSGrid. It hasn't been attended by all core developers for a few
> years but usually there are several of us that regularly attend. OSGrid has
> the advantage of simple registration, relative popularity, and being on the
> Hypergrid and many people have access. This may serve as a possible forum
> for your project although in recent years it seems to have evolved more
> into a support forum more than a development forum. If it is deemed
> unsatisfactory I would still suggest a location on OSGrid for no other
> reason than the ease of access. I do think IRC meetings would suffice
> though.
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>> Caveats: NONE
>>
>> Good Morning Everyone,  we believe it would be a great idea to begin
>> holding
>> design review meetings with the OS developers.  I'd like to discuss with
>> you
>> our development roadmap and timelines.  We have a tight schedule, and now
>> that we have working stats collection in place, we can begin refinement of
>> the simulator to enhance performance.  The PhysX module is almost ready for
>> prime time and we would like to go over it with you before submitting the
>> patch.
>>
>> I am aware that you sometimes meet, but I don't know where/when at this
>> time.  We have 9 members of the MOSES team on this effort, would you like
>> us
>> to come to you?  We could host you on the MOSES grid if you'd rather come
>> there.
>>
>> Lots of progress is being made and we'd like to fall into a comfortable
>> groove so that development can continue at an efficient pace.
>>
>> Looking forward to your feedback.
>>
>> v/r -doug
>>
>> Douglas Maxwell
>> Science and Technology Manager
>> Virtual World Strategic Applications
>> U.S. Army Research Lab
>> Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
>> (c) (407) 242-0209
>>
>>
>>
>> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>> Caveats: NONE
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Opensim-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Design Review (UNCLASSIFIED)

Kevin Cozens
In reply to this post by Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
On 15-08-10 10:57 AM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) wrote:
>  we believe it would be a great idea to begin holding
> design review meetings with the OS developers.  I'd like to discuss with you
> our development roadmap and timelines.  We have a tight schedule, and now
> that we have working stats collection in place, we can begin refinement of
> the simulator to enhance performance.  The PhysX module is almost ready for
> prime time and we would like to go over it with you before submitting the
> patch.
>
> I am aware that you sometimes meet, but I don't know where/when

We have the mailing list when you want to reach a larger number of people
involved with the project or when a written record of some discussions is
useful. For more immediate discussions we have the #opensim-dev IRC channel.

There are weekly meetings on Tuesdays at Wright Plaza in OSgrid at 11am
(local grid time). These meetings typically last about an hour and are open
to anyone interested in the Open Simulator project and its ongoing development.

The topics and discussions related to ongoing work on the PhysX module may
be better suited to IRC or email rather than the weekly developer meetings.

--
Cheers!

Kevin.

http://www.ve3syb.ca/           |"Nerds make the shiny things that distract
Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172      | the mouth-breathers, and that's why we're
                                 | powerful!"
#include <disclaimer/favourite> |             --Chris Hardwick
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Projects evolve.

I couldn't begin to estimate the amount of work that has gone into this
valuable project.  The potential for technical and economic success is
profound and I see a bright future for the Open Simulator.  That said, I fear
we are at a crossroads at this time with this project.

It is unclear at this time what the maintainers of the Open Simulator code
have planned for the project.  Is there a roadmap or some sort of
goals/objectives you are working against?  What development targets would you
like to see met in 12, 16, and 24 months from now?

The MOSES project has needs & requirements that we are stepping up and
supporting with internal development, but we aren't the drivers for the Open
Simulator project.  We've done our own internal gap analysis and determined
where in the OS code there should be investment in stability, monitoring, and
scalability improvements.  In short, we are returning our code to you to
adhere and abide by applicable derivative source code licensing terms.

I believe the removal of the Overte as a formal governing entity is a mistake
if you plan to encourage participation from business and government.  The CLA
was viewed by my organization as a formalized relationship acknowledging the
legal responsibility of open source code stewardship and use.

If this were simply a hobby, then Overte and the CLA would not be needed.
However, the Open Simulator is being used by businesses charging money for
service, by researchers studying human behavior and technical behavior, by
educators, and more.  Like it or not, you have created a product that needs
management and attention at a higher level than the ad-hoc method that is
currently your standard operating procedures.

Project management must evolve.

As projects are started at the grass roots and then emerge as valued
commodities, the need for different styles of management is required.  A
project with two active developers is different than a project with 20 or 200.
If the management does not evolve, then the project will be limited and growth
is not possible.  I encourage you to think about a new structure that can
handle influx of large amounts of donated code in a short time.  The kinds of
investments needed to make this a world class simulator requires you to step
up and begin project planning.

This is a community effort.

If the community values this work and would like to see it grow or even
receive maintenance, then the community must voice.  This code does not belong
in the hands of a gov't agency or corporate entity.  This code belongs in the
hands of a strong non-profit that can handle grant and contract funds to pay a
staff of maintainers, code reviewers, testers, and functional area code
managers.  This could be an Overte spin-off, or even an academic institution
of some kind.

I've given you a glimpse into what the next 9 months of development for the
MOSES related Open Simulator issues.  We came in this spring at a time when
development seemed to be winding down and things were quiet after the 0.8.x
releases.  What will you do when we reach the logical conclusion of our work?
What is next for Open Simulator?

I look forward to your feedback and constructive discourse.

v/r -doug

Dr. Douglas Maxwell
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
(c) (407) 242-0209



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

smime.p7s (7K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Terry Ford-2
I agree.
I think all of these points are very good and should be considered.

I would be most willing to take part in some sort of committee or group should one be formed.
I think the future of OpenSim is great, but does need some sort of management.

I think a group, which gets thoughts and ideas from those working closest (devs, educators, grid owners, etc.) with OpenSim would do well.
This group could then set goals based on the input from these various areas and the users.

Just thoughts, but I think some form of non biased management is needed to set goals and to help steer this project.
I think there are many working on this project who take it very seriously, while others do it for fun, but all are limited by the time available to participate.

Very good topic for discussion though.

Terry Ford
aka: Butch Arnold



On 8/11/2015 12:59 PM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) wrote:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Projects evolve.

I couldn't begin to estimate the amount of work that has gone into this 
valuable project.  The potential for technical and economic success is 
profound and I see a bright future for the Open Simulator.  That said, I fear 
we are at a crossroads at this time with this project.

It is unclear at this time what the maintainers of the Open Simulator code 
have planned for the project.  Is there a roadmap or some sort of 
goals/objectives you are working against?  What development targets would you 
like to see met in 12, 16, and 24 months from now?

The MOSES project has needs & requirements that we are stepping up and 
supporting with internal development, but we aren't the drivers for the Open 
Simulator project.  We've done our own internal gap analysis and determined 
where in the OS code there should be investment in stability, monitoring, and 
scalability improvements.  In short, we are returning our code to you to 
adhere and abide by applicable derivative source code licensing terms.

I believe the removal of the Overte as a formal governing entity is a mistake 
if you plan to encourage participation from business and government.  The CLA 
was viewed by my organization as a formalized relationship acknowledging the 
legal responsibility of open source code stewardship and use.

If this were simply a hobby, then Overte and the CLA would not be needed. 
However, the Open Simulator is being used by businesses charging money for 
service, by researchers studying human behavior and technical behavior, by 
educators, and more.  Like it or not, you have created a product that needs 
management and attention at a higher level than the ad-hoc method that is 
currently your standard operating procedures.

Project management must evolve.

As projects are started at the grass roots and then emerge as valued 
commodities, the need for different styles of management is required.  A 
project with two active developers is different than a project with 20 or 200. 
If the management does not evolve, then the project will be limited and growth 
is not possible.  I encourage you to think about a new structure that can 
handle influx of large amounts of donated code in a short time.  The kinds of 
investments needed to make this a world class simulator requires you to step 
up and begin project planning.

This is a community effort.

If the community values this work and would like to see it grow or even 
receive maintenance, then the community must voice.  This code does not belong 
in the hands of a gov't agency or corporate entity.  This code belongs in the 
hands of a strong non-profit that can handle grant and contract funds to pay a 
staff of maintainers, code reviewers, testers, and functional area code 
managers.  This could be an Overte spin-off, or even an academic institution 
of some kind.

I've given you a glimpse into what the next 9 months of development for the 
MOSES related Open Simulator issues.  We came in this spring at a time when 
development seemed to be winding down and things were quiet after the 0.8.x 
releases.  What will you do when we reach the logical conclusion of our work? 
What is next for Open Simulator?

I look forward to your feedback and constructive discourse.

v/r -doug

Dr. Douglas Maxwell
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
(c) (407) 242-0209



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE




_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

--
---------------------
Terry Ford
DigiWorldz Grid
http://digiworldz.com

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Dahlia Trimble
In reply to this post by Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Thank you Doug for sharing your insights. I do tend to agree to some extent that we are probably nearing crossroads and I'll try to explain why.

I've been involved in this project for around 8 years and I had been using and contributing to libOpenmetaverse for some time before that. I've been an avid user and code contributor and core developer. I've spent much time testing, supporting users, and recruiting and supporting developers. I've worked on many related projects that are not part of the core code base. I've participated in administration and planning. As such I've developed a intuitive sense of the implicit roadmap which, for lack of a better description, is to emulate Second Life as closely as possible and to add new features which LL may not wish to develop, all while maintaining the best compatibility possible. This deviates from the project description on http://opensimulator.org but I believe the user community wants and expects this compatibility above all else. This has been demonstrated to me countless times via my interactions with users and one only needs to peruse our Mantis system for a few hours to gain a similar understanding. Those who depend on this compatibility are likely not vocal about it until something breaks it. at which point they tend to complain en masse.

I see the crossroads ahead due to LL's seeming lack of future development for Second Life. OpenSimulator should continue but there are some difficulties which could impede progress towards the beyond: the user need for compatibility and the architecture of the core code which is very specifically designed around the SL way of doing things. I also see a lot of interesting ideas expressed by the community; some which come to mind are integration of voxels (anything from simple object editors to a complete voxel-based world), space based simulations with planets and altered physics, and augmented and/or virtual reality where real-life content can be mixed with virtual and which can provide a very immersive experience when used with such technology as a Oculus Rift or others, to name a few. Such enhancements are likely huge, long term projects on their own and may turn out to be so fundamentally incompatible with the current code and each other that all becomes impossible. Or perhaps some clever developers can invent ways to make it all work together. Developing a feasible architecture and a roadmap around such features would likely not be a simple exercise.

There are other goals shared by some users based on improving reliability, scalability, performance and operating cost, I tend to consider the MOSES contributions to be along these lines. I believe such are more feasible but probably less likely to prevent our reaching the crossroads I've eluded to above. They are still valuable goals and their persuit will likely bring benefit to most users.

I tend to agree that losing Overte is undesirable. Unfortunately I lack the time and resources to contribute towards maintaining it. There are alternatives that have been discussed and one of them may eventually come to be. I really can't offer any predictions in this regard.

Please note that I am offering my own opinions here and I am not speaking for other core developers or contributors. We're a loose bunch and we don't often speak for each other. I'm sure others may disagree with my statements but that's OK, such disagreements have helped to make OpenSimulator what it is today :)

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) <[hidden email]> wrote:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Projects evolve.

I couldn't begin to estimate the amount of work that has gone into this
valuable project.  The potential for technical and economic success is
profound and I see a bright future for the Open Simulator.  That said, I fear
we are at a crossroads at this time with this project.

It is unclear at this time what the maintainers of the Open Simulator code
have planned for the project.  Is there a roadmap or some sort of
goals/objectives you are working against?  What development targets would you
like to see met in 12, 16, and 24 months from now?

The MOSES project has needs & requirements that we are stepping up and
supporting with internal development, but we aren't the drivers for the Open
Simulator project.  We've done our own internal gap analysis and determined
where in the OS code there should be investment in stability, monitoring, and
scalability improvements.  In short, we are returning our code to you to
adhere and abide by applicable derivative source code licensing terms.

I believe the removal of the Overte as a formal governing entity is a mistake
if you plan to encourage participation from business and government.  The CLA
was viewed by my organization as a formalized relationship acknowledging the
legal responsibility of open source code stewardship and use.

If this were simply a hobby, then Overte and the CLA would not be needed.
However, the Open Simulator is being used by businesses charging money for
service, by researchers studying human behavior and technical behavior, by
educators, and more.  Like it or not, you have created a product that needs
management and attention at a higher level than the ad-hoc method that is
currently your standard operating procedures.

Project management must evolve.

As projects are started at the grass roots and then emerge as valued
commodities, the need for different styles of management is required.  A
project with two active developers is different than a project with 20 or 200.
If the management does not evolve, then the project will be limited and growth
is not possible.  I encourage you to think about a new structure that can
handle influx of large amounts of donated code in a short time.  The kinds of
investments needed to make this a world class simulator requires you to step
up and begin project planning.

This is a community effort.

If the community values this work and would like to see it grow or even
receive maintenance, then the community must voice.  This code does not belong
in the hands of a gov't agency or corporate entity.  This code belongs in the
hands of a strong non-profit that can handle grant and contract funds to pay a
staff of maintainers, code reviewers, testers, and functional area code
managers.  This could be an Overte spin-off, or even an academic institution
of some kind.

I've given you a glimpse into what the next 9 months of development for the
MOSES related Open Simulator issues.  We came in this spring at a time when
development seemed to be winding down and things were quiet after the 0.8.x
releases.  What will you do when we reach the logical conclusion of our work?
What is next for Open Simulator?

I look forward to your feedback and constructive discourse.

v/r -doug

Dr. Douglas Maxwell
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
(c) <a href="tel:%28407%29%20242-0209" value="+14072420209">(407) 242-0209



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Myron Curtis
In reply to this post by Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
I have to second this statement. At the very least, we need an industry
advisory committee working on creating a practical and scalable model of
Opensim's development.
I do feel that while the core is evolving, we should also build a project
around managing and improving access to the APIs to encourage the
development of add on modules which would contribute to the scalability and
expansion of Opensim's capabilities.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Maxwell, Douglas
CIV USARMY ARL (US)
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 9:59 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Projects evolve.

I couldn't begin to estimate the amount of work that has gone into this
valuable project.  The potential for technical and economic success is
profound and I see a bright future for the Open Simulator.  That said, I
fear we are at a crossroads at this time with this project.

It is unclear at this time what the maintainers of the Open Simulator code
have planned for the project.  Is there a roadmap or some sort of
goals/objectives you are working against?  What development targets would
you like to see met in 12, 16, and 24 months from now?

The MOSES project has needs & requirements that we are stepping up and
supporting with internal development, but we aren't the drivers for the Open
Simulator project.  We've done our own internal gap analysis and determined
where in the OS code there should be investment in stability, monitoring,
and scalability improvements.  In short, we are returning our code to you to
adhere and abide by applicable derivative source code licensing terms.

I believe the removal of the Overte as a formal governing entity is a
mistake if you plan to encourage participation from business and government.
The CLA was viewed by my organization as a formalized relationship
acknowledging the legal responsibility of open source code stewardship and
use.

If this were simply a hobby, then Overte and the CLA would not be needed.
However, the Open Simulator is being used by businesses charging money for
service, by researchers studying human behavior and technical behavior, by
educators, and more.  Like it or not, you have created a product that needs
management and attention at a higher level than the ad-hoc method that is
currently your standard operating procedures.

Project management must evolve.

As projects are started at the grass roots and then emerge as valued
commodities, the need for different styles of management is required.  A
project with two active developers is different than a project with 20 or
200.
If the management does not evolve, then the project will be limited and
growth is not possible.  I encourage you to think about a new structure that
can handle influx of large amounts of donated code in a short time.  The
kinds of investments needed to make this a world class simulator requires
you to step up and begin project planning.

This is a community effort.

If the community values this work and would like to see it grow or even
receive maintenance, then the community must voice.  This code does not
belong in the hands of a gov't agency or corporate entity.  This code
belongs in the hands of a strong non-profit that can handle grant and
contract funds to pay a staff of maintainers, code reviewers, testers, and
functional area code managers.  This could be an Overte spin-off, or even an
academic institution of some kind.

I've given you a glimpse into what the next 9 months of development for the
MOSES related Open Simulator issues.  We came in this spring at a time when
development seemed to be winding down and things were quiet after the 0.8.x
releases.  What will you do when we reach the logical conclusion of our
work?
What is next for Open Simulator?

I look forward to your feedback and constructive discourse.

v/r -doug

Dr. Douglas Maxwell
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
(c) (407) 242-0209



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

justincc
In reply to this post by Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
I won't comment much over future direction.  However, Overte was never a governing entity, it was set up only to manage CLAs and maybe some other things in the future (which never got realized).  Power over development direction has always been with the developers.

CLAs for open-source projects tend to come from corporations running those projects that are very worried about getting sued.  The vast majority have no such structures.  It is very debatable whether anything other than the open-source license is needed.

And there are many different project structures out there.  Linux, for example, is controlled by a single individual who, along with a group of authorized lieutenants, controls everything that goes into the codebase.  That is an evolution since Linus used to be the sole committer (and got overwhelmed by it). 

The direction of evolution is not inevitably to some managing organization.  Or at the very least, the developers much always be in charge of what happens to the codebase.


On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) <[hidden email]> wrote:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Projects evolve.

I couldn't begin to estimate the amount of work that has gone into this
valuable project.  The potential for technical and economic success is
profound and I see a bright future for the Open Simulator.  That said, I fear
we are at a crossroads at this time with this project.

It is unclear at this time what the maintainers of the Open Simulator code
have planned for the project.  Is there a roadmap or some sort of
goals/objectives you are working against?  What development targets would you
like to see met in 12, 16, and 24 months from now?

The MOSES project has needs & requirements that we are stepping up and
supporting with internal development, but we aren't the drivers for the Open
Simulator project.  We've done our own internal gap analysis and determined
where in the OS code there should be investment in stability, monitoring, and
scalability improvements.  In short, we are returning our code to you to
adhere and abide by applicable derivative source code licensing terms.

I believe the removal of the Overte as a formal governing entity is a mistake
if you plan to encourage participation from business and government.  The CLA
was viewed by my organization as a formalized relationship acknowledging the
legal responsibility of open source code stewardship and use.

If this were simply a hobby, then Overte and the CLA would not be needed.
However, the Open Simulator is being used by businesses charging money for
service, by researchers studying human behavior and technical behavior, by
educators, and more.  Like it or not, you have created a product that needs
management and attention at a higher level than the ad-hoc method that is
currently your standard operating procedures.

Project management must evolve.

As projects are started at the grass roots and then emerge as valued
commodities, the need for different styles of management is required.  A
project with two active developers is different than a project with 20 or 200.
If the management does not evolve, then the project will be limited and growth
is not possible.  I encourage you to think about a new structure that can
handle influx of large amounts of donated code in a short time.  The kinds of
investments needed to make this a world class simulator requires you to step
up and begin project planning.

This is a community effort.

If the community values this work and would like to see it grow or even
receive maintenance, then the community must voice.  This code does not belong
in the hands of a gov't agency or corporate entity.  This code belongs in the
hands of a strong non-profit that can handle grant and contract funds to pay a
staff of maintainers, code reviewers, testers, and functional area code
managers.  This could be an Overte spin-off, or even an academic institution
of some kind.

I've given you a glimpse into what the next 9 months of development for the
MOSES related Open Simulator issues.  We came in this spring at a time when
development seemed to be winding down and things were quiet after the 0.8.x
releases.  What will you do when we reach the logical conclusion of our work?
What is next for Open Simulator?

I look forward to your feedback and constructive discourse.

v/r -doug

Dr. Douglas Maxwell
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
(c) (407) 242-0209



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Can someone explain to me why the core developers insist on control of the
code, but refuse to manage the project?  I ask again:  what are your plans for
the future of Open Simulator?  It's ok to say you don't have any, let's make
some!

I'll throw out some ideas based on the MOSES goals and objectives:

1)  Scale limitations lifted.  We need a system that is governed by its
available hardware and network resources, not bound by software limits.

2)  Let's create clear definitions of "stability".

3)  Clear and up-to-date API documentation.

4)  Clear and up-to-date OS deployment guidance under numerous typical network
topologies.

5)  Bug identification & reduction.

6)  Efficient ray tracing.  Useful for simulation of sensors as well as
naturalized bot interactions.

7)  N-body physics.  Would be nice to have vehicles that can follow terrain
and not look like Star Wars land speeders.  Would also be nice to have more
natural avatar movement rather than the rigid animations we use now.

What are yours?  Anyone?

v/r -doug

Dr. Douglas Maxwell
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
(c) (407) 242-0209



-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Justin Clark-Casey
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 7:40 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

I won't comment much over future direction.  However, Overte was never a
governing entity, it was set up only to manage CLAs and maybe some other
things in the future (which never got realized).  Power over development
direction has always been with the developers.

CLAs for open-source projects tend to come from corporations running those
projects that are very worried about getting sued.  The vast majority have no
such structures.  It is very debatable whether anything other than the
open-source license is needed.


And there are many different project structures out there.  Linux, for
example, is controlled by a single individual who, along with a group of
authorized lieutenants, controls everything that goes into the codebase.  That
is an evolution since Linus used to be the sole committer (and got overwhelmed
by it).

The direction of evolution is not inevitably to some managing organization.
Or at the very least, the developers much always be in charge of what happens
to the codebase.



On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US)
<[hidden email]> wrote:


        Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
        Caveats: NONE

        Projects evolve.

        I couldn't begin to estimate the amount of work that has gone into this
        valuable project.  The potential for technical and economic success is
        profound and I see a bright future for the Open Simulator.  That said, I fear
        we are at a crossroads at this time with this project.

        It is unclear at this time what the maintainers of the Open Simulator code
        have planned for the project.  Is there a roadmap or some sort of
        goals/objectives you are working against?  What development targets would you
        like to see met in 12, 16, and 24 months from now?

        The MOSES project has needs & requirements that we are stepping up and
        supporting with internal development, but we aren't the drivers for the Open
        Simulator project.  We've done our own internal gap analysis and determined
        where in the OS code there should be investment in stability, monitoring, and
        scalability improvements.  In short, we are returning our code to you to
        adhere and abide by applicable derivative source code licensing terms.

        I believe the removal of the Overte as a formal governing entity is a mistake
        if you plan to encourage participation from business and government.  The CLA
        was viewed by my organization as a formalized relationship acknowledging the
        legal responsibility of open source code stewardship and use.

        If this were simply a hobby, then Overte and the CLA would not be needed.
        However, the Open Simulator is being used by businesses charging money for
        service, by researchers studying human behavior and technical behavior, by
        educators, and more.  Like it or not, you have created a product that needs
        management and attention at a higher level than the ad-hoc method that is
        currently your standard operating procedures.

        Project management must evolve.

        As projects are started at the grass roots and then emerge as valued
        commodities, the need for different styles of management is required.  A
        project with two active developers is different than a project with 20 or
200.
        If the management does not evolve, then the project will be limited and
growth
        is not possible.  I encourage you to think about a new structure that can
        handle influx of large amounts of donated code in a short time.  The kinds of
        investments needed to make this a world class simulator requires you to step
        up and begin project planning.

        This is a community effort.

        If the community values this work and would like to see it grow or even
        receive maintenance, then the community must voice.  This code does not
belong
        in the hands of a gov't agency or corporate entity.  This code belongs in the
        hands of a strong non-profit that can handle grant and contract funds to pay
a
        staff of maintainers, code reviewers, testers, and functional area code
        managers.  This could be an Overte spin-off, or even an academic institution
        of some kind.

        I've given you a glimpse into what the next 9 months of development for the
        MOSES related Open Simulator issues.  We came in this spring at a time when
        development seemed to be winding down and things were quiet after the 0.8.x
        releases.  What will you do when we reach the logical conclusion of our work?
        What is next for Open Simulator?

        I look forward to your feedback and constructive discourse.

        v/r -doug

        Dr. Douglas Maxwell
        Science and Technology Manager
        Virtual World Strategic Applications
        U.S. Army Research Lab
        Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
        (c) (407) 242-0209



        Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
        Caveats: NONE



        _______________________________________________
        Opensim-dev mailing list
        [hidden email]
        http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev





Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

smime.p7s (7K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Blake
I'd love to see a "Convention over Configuration" approach. What I mean is that OpenSim come configured for best practices.

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) <[hidden email]> wrote:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Can someone explain to me why the core developers insist on control of the
code, but refuse to manage the project?  I ask again:  what are your plans for
the future of Open Simulator?  It's ok to say you don't have any, let's make
some!

I'll throw out some ideas based on the MOSES goals and objectives:

1)  Scale limitations lifted.  We need a system that is governed by its
available hardware and network resources, not bound by software limits.

2)  Let's create clear definitions of "stability".

3)  Clear and up-to-date API documentation.

4)  Clear and up-to-date OS deployment guidance under numerous typical network
topologies.

5)  Bug identification & reduction.

6)  Efficient ray tracing.  Useful for simulation of sensors as well as
naturalized bot interactions.

7)  N-body physics.  Would be nice to have vehicles that can follow terrain
and not look like Star Wars land speeders.  Would also be nice to have more
natural avatar movement rather than the rigid animations we use now.

What are yours?  Anyone?

v/r -doug

Dr. Douglas Maxwell
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
(c) <a href="tel:%28407%29%20242-0209" value="+14072420209">(407) 242-0209



-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Justin Clark-Casey
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 7:40 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

I won't comment much over future direction.  However, Overte was never a
governing entity, it was set up only to manage CLAs and maybe some other
things in the future (which never got realized).  Power over development
direction has always been with the developers.

CLAs for open-source projects tend to come from corporations running those
projects that are very worried about getting sued.  The vast majority have no
such structures.  It is very debatable whether anything other than the
open-source license is needed.


And there are many different project structures out there.  Linux, for
example, is controlled by a single individual who, along with a group of
authorized lieutenants, controls everything that goes into the codebase.  That
is an evolution since Linus used to be the sole committer (and got overwhelmed
by it).

The direction of evolution is not inevitably to some managing organization.
Or at the very least, the developers much always be in charge of what happens
to the codebase.



On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US)
<[hidden email]> wrote:


        Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
        Caveats: NONE

        Projects evolve.

        I couldn't begin to estimate the amount of work that has gone into this
        valuable project.  The potential for technical and economic success is
        profound and I see a bright future for the Open Simulator.  That said, I fear
        we are at a crossroads at this time with this project.

        It is unclear at this time what the maintainers of the Open Simulator code
        have planned for the project.  Is there a roadmap or some sort of
        goals/objectives you are working against?  What development targets would you
        like to see met in 12, 16, and 24 months from now?

        The MOSES project has needs & requirements that we are stepping up and
        supporting with internal development, but we aren't the drivers for the Open
        Simulator project.  We've done our own internal gap analysis and determined
        where in the OS code there should be investment in stability, monitoring, and
        scalability improvements.  In short, we are returning our code to you to
        adhere and abide by applicable derivative source code licensing terms.

        I believe the removal of the Overte as a formal governing entity is a mistake
        if you plan to encourage participation from business and government.  The CLA
        was viewed by my organization as a formalized relationship acknowledging the
        legal responsibility of open source code stewardship and use.

        If this were simply a hobby, then Overte and the CLA would not be needed.
        However, the Open Simulator is being used by businesses charging money for
        service, by researchers studying human behavior and technical behavior, by
        educators, and more.  Like it or not, you have created a product that needs
        management and attention at a higher level than the ad-hoc method that is
        currently your standard operating procedures.

        Project management must evolve.

        As projects are started at the grass roots and then emerge as valued
        commodities, the need for different styles of management is required.  A
        project with two active developers is different than a project with 20 or
200.
        If the management does not evolve, then the project will be limited and
growth
        is not possible.  I encourage you to think about a new structure that can
        handle influx of large amounts of donated code in a short time.  The kinds of
        investments needed to make this a world class simulator requires you to step
        up and begin project planning.

        This is a community effort.

        If the community values this work and would like to see it grow or even
        receive maintenance, then the community must voice.  This code does not
belong
        in the hands of a gov't agency or corporate entity.  This code belongs in the
        hands of a strong non-profit that can handle grant and contract funds to pay
a
        staff of maintainers, code reviewers, testers, and functional area code
        managers.  This could be an Overte spin-off, or even an academic institution
        of some kind.

        I've given you a glimpse into what the next 9 months of development for the
        MOSES related Open Simulator issues.  We came in this spring at a time when
        development seemed to be winding down and things were quiet after the 0.8.x
        releases.  What will you do when we reach the logical conclusion of our work?
        What is next for Open Simulator?

        I look forward to your feedback and constructive discourse.

        v/r -doug

        Dr. Douglas Maxwell
        Science and Technology Manager
        Virtual World Strategic Applications
        U.S. Army Research Lab
        Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
        (c) <a href="tel:%28407%29%20242-0209" value="+14072420209">(407) 242-0209



        Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
        Caveats: NONE



        _______________________________________________
        Opensim-dev mailing list
        [hidden email]
        http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev





Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Cinder Roxley
In reply to this post by Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
On August 13, 2015 at 8:14:30 AM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) ([hidden email]) wrote:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED 
Caveats: NONE 

Can someone explain to me why the core developers insist on control of the 
code, but refuse to manage the project? I ask again: what are your plans for 
the future of Open Simulator? It's ok to say you don't have any, let's make 
some! 

I'll throw out some ideas based on the MOSES goals and objectives: 

1) Scale limitations lifted. We need a system that is governed by its 
available hardware and network resources, not bound by software limits. 

2) Let's create clear definitions of "stability". 

3) Clear and up-to-date API documentation. 

4) Clear and up-to-date OS deployment guidance under numerous typical network 
topologies. 

5) Bug identification & reduction. 

6) Efficient ray tracing. Useful for simulation of sensors as well as 
naturalized bot interactions. 

7) N-body physics. Would be nice to have vehicles that can follow terrain 
and not look like Star Wars land speeders. Would also be nice to have more 
natural avatar movement rather than the rigid animations we use now. 

What are yours? Anyone? 

v/r -doug

This can be considered my “wish list” as I don’t really have a say in what happens, but I’m willing to put in a fair share of work in seeing that it can be done if others agree these are desirable targets:

1) Restating what Doug has mentioned, Clear and up-to-date API documentation. This hinders contributors, myself included, from working on things and leads to a lot of frustration and disappointed from well-intentioned folks.

2) A coding standard that defines and formalizes the style of code used throughout the codebase and is adhered to and enforced and should be pointed to often and regularly for contributions. Good code is easy to read and manageable. A formal coding standard is a good step in that direction.

3) OpenSim is a thread monster. There doesn’t seem to be any sort of approach to how threading is handled. This I think would fall under Doug’s criteria for #1.

4) I think it’s time to hop off the fence and decide whether to maintain the Second Life protocol compatibility, (Which, let’s be honest, is pretty lacking. There’s a lot missing post-2010.) or to break new ground. Linden Lab has apparently made their decision regarding that. There are viewer developers out there willing to work with OpenSimulator is doing this. I am one of them. I just can’t be in IRC all the time, but I want to do this with you guys and I know there are others out there willing to put in the work to build clients to connect to new and better worlds with sensible protocols.

Please don’t take any of this as criticism as it is not meant as such. I appreciate all the work that everyone on this project and who is affiliated with it does.

-- 
Cinder Roxley
Sent with Airmail

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Dahlia Trimble
In reply to this post by Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Hi Doug,

The project is managed in a very loose manner as that is what has demonstrated the means of the success the project has achieved to date. The core team controls the core team's repository. Most (all?) developers have features they would like to see and they either develop them and contribute them as core developers, or submit them as pull requests or patches as non-core developers. Non-core developers who submit several useful features and support them are often invited to join the core team and have full core authority if they accept. The code is architected such that it should make it easy for non-core developers to add many features to their specific downstream code bases and still maintain compatibility with upstream code. Features are not usually solicited but rather we rely on code donations and we try to work with those donating code to ensure that it fits well and doesn't disrupt existing users, of which there are very many.

Feature suggestions and requests are welcome but bear in mind that, except under very rare circumstances, none of us are paid to develop, maintain, or support such features. We for the most part do this in our spare time on a volunteer basis. Whether this falls under the category of "hobby" or "professional" is highly subjective and such categorization is of little value. There have been times when large corporations had some of their employees develop for us but that hasn't happened for a while now. There are also many, perhaps thousands of feature ideas out there that are generously offered by the community and we have no resources available to develop such and for most, any foreseeable implementation is highly unlikely unless a developer decides that it is in their best interest to develop such a feature at their own expense and donate it to the community.

Soliciting and accepting outside management help is also unlikely as such help could attempt to steer the project towards it's specific goals at the expense of other equally important goals that others may have.

Fortunately the license allows those who cannot work within these constraints to still use and modify the code to their satisfaction, and to hopefully make the effort to pass it upstream in the future if they see fit to do so.

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:13 AM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) <[hidden email]> wrote:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Can someone explain to me why the core developers insist on control of the
code, but refuse to manage the project?  I ask again:  what are your plans for
the future of Open Simulator?  It's ok to say you don't have any, let's make
some!

I'll throw out some ideas based on the MOSES goals and objectives:

1)  Scale limitations lifted.  We need a system that is governed by its
available hardware and network resources, not bound by software limits.

2)  Let's create clear definitions of "stability".

3)  Clear and up-to-date API documentation.

4)  Clear and up-to-date OS deployment guidance under numerous typical network
topologies.

5)  Bug identification & reduction.

6)  Efficient ray tracing.  Useful for simulation of sensors as well as
naturalized bot interactions.

7)  N-body physics.  Would be nice to have vehicles that can follow terrain
and not look like Star Wars land speeders.  Would also be nice to have more
natural avatar movement rather than the rigid animations we use now.

What are yours?  Anyone?

v/r -doug

Dr. Douglas Maxwell
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
(c) <a href="tel:%28407%29%20242-0209" value="+14072420209">(407) 242-0209



-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Justin Clark-Casey
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 7:40 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

I won't comment much over future direction.  However, Overte was never a
governing entity, it was set up only to manage CLAs and maybe some other
things in the future (which never got realized).  Power over development
direction has always been with the developers.

CLAs for open-source projects tend to come from corporations running those
projects that are very worried about getting sued.  The vast majority have no
such structures.  It is very debatable whether anything other than the
open-source license is needed.


And there are many different project structures out there.  Linux, for
example, is controlled by a single individual who, along with a group of
authorized lieutenants, controls everything that goes into the codebase.  That
is an evolution since Linus used to be the sole committer (and got overwhelmed
by it).

The direction of evolution is not inevitably to some managing organization.
Or at the very least, the developers much always be in charge of what happens
to the codebase.



On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US)
<[hidden email]> wrote:


        Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
        Caveats: NONE

        Projects evolve.

        I couldn't begin to estimate the amount of work that has gone into this
        valuable project.  The potential for technical and economic success is
        profound and I see a bright future for the Open Simulator.  That said, I fear
        we are at a crossroads at this time with this project.

        It is unclear at this time what the maintainers of the Open Simulator code
        have planned for the project.  Is there a roadmap or some sort of
        goals/objectives you are working against?  What development targets would you
        like to see met in 12, 16, and 24 months from now?

        The MOSES project has needs & requirements that we are stepping up and
        supporting with internal development, but we aren't the drivers for the Open
        Simulator project.  We've done our own internal gap analysis and determined
        where in the OS code there should be investment in stability, monitoring, and
        scalability improvements.  In short, we are returning our code to you to
        adhere and abide by applicable derivative source code licensing terms.

        I believe the removal of the Overte as a formal governing entity is a mistake
        if you plan to encourage participation from business and government.  The CLA
        was viewed by my organization as a formalized relationship acknowledging the
        legal responsibility of open source code stewardship and use.

        If this were simply a hobby, then Overte and the CLA would not be needed.
        However, the Open Simulator is being used by businesses charging money for
        service, by researchers studying human behavior and technical behavior, by
        educators, and more.  Like it or not, you have created a product that needs
        management and attention at a higher level than the ad-hoc method that is
        currently your standard operating procedures.

        Project management must evolve.

        As projects are started at the grass roots and then emerge as valued
        commodities, the need for different styles of management is required.  A
        project with two active developers is different than a project with 20 or
200.
        If the management does not evolve, then the project will be limited and
growth
        is not possible.  I encourage you to think about a new structure that can
        handle influx of large amounts of donated code in a short time.  The kinds of
        investments needed to make this a world class simulator requires you to step
        up and begin project planning.

        This is a community effort.

        If the community values this work and would like to see it grow or even
        receive maintenance, then the community must voice.  This code does not
belong
        in the hands of a gov't agency or corporate entity.  This code belongs in the
        hands of a strong non-profit that can handle grant and contract funds to pay
a
        staff of maintainers, code reviewers, testers, and functional area code
        managers.  This could be an Overte spin-off, or even an academic institution
        of some kind.

        I've given you a glimpse into what the next 9 months of development for the
        MOSES related Open Simulator issues.  We came in this spring at a time when
        development seemed to be winding down and things were quiet after the 0.8.x
        releases.  What will you do when we reach the logical conclusion of our work?
        What is next for Open Simulator?

        I look forward to your feedback and constructive discourse.

        v/r -doug

        Dr. Douglas Maxwell
        Science and Technology Manager
        Virtual World Strategic Applications
        U.S. Army Research Lab
        Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
        (c) <a href="tel:%28407%29%20242-0209" value="+14072420209">(407) 242-0209



        Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
        Caveats: NONE



        _______________________________________________
        Opensim-dev mailing list
        [hidden email]
        http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev





Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Mister Blue
While there are some constraints on the core sources enforced by the core development team, really it is running code that wins. People who don't want to work in the core sources fork and move in their own directions (Aurora, Whitecore and some commercial grids along with many more). There have been some corporations who have supplied teams of people to work on OpenSimulator but, in general, it is as Dahlia says, we're all volunteers.

That said, the OpenSimulator core is supposed to be modular and some amazing things can be added to it. For instance, the Distributed Scene Graph project is separate from core but it contributed many enhancements to core that enabled the modularization required by DSG.  I wouldn't be too pained by an independent PhysX implementation for OpenSimulator as long as the necessary hooks to extend physics were added to core. This would make the core more modular and more useful for other projects.

I have my own ideas about a next generation, scalable, wonderful virtual world simulation system but that is not for here. For OpenSimulator, I'd like to see it made more modular and to add the events, APIs, and abstractions needed to extend it in all the ways the different user groups need.

== mb


On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Dahlia Trimble <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Doug,

The project is managed in a very loose manner as that is what has demonstrated the means of the success the project has achieved to date. The core team controls the core team's repository. Most (all?) developers have features they would like to see and they either develop them and contribute them as core developers, or submit them as pull requests or patches as non-core developers. Non-core developers who submit several useful features and support them are often invited to join the core team and have full core authority if they accept. The code is architected such that it should make it easy for non-core developers to add many features to their specific downstream code bases and still maintain compatibility with upstream code. Features are not usually solicited but rather we rely on code donations and we try to work with those donating code to ensure that it fits well and doesn't disrupt existing users, of which there are very many.

Feature suggestions and requests are welcome but bear in mind that, except under very rare circumstances, none of us are paid to develop, maintain, or support such features. We for the most part do this in our spare time on a volunteer basis. Whether this falls under the category of "hobby" or "professional" is highly subjective and such categorization is of little value. There have been times when large corporations had some of their employees develop for us but that hasn't happened for a while now. There are also many, perhaps thousands of feature ideas out there that are generously offered by the community and we have no resources available to develop such and for most, any foreseeable implementation is highly unlikely unless a developer decides that it is in their best interest to develop such a feature at their own expense and donate it to the community.

Soliciting and accepting outside management help is also unlikely as such help could attempt to steer the project towards it's specific goals at the expense of other equally important goals that others may have.

Fortunately the license allows those who cannot work within these constraints to still use and modify the code to their satisfaction, and to hopefully make the effort to pass it upstream in the future if they see fit to do so.

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:13 AM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) <[hidden email]> wrote:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Can someone explain to me why the core developers insist on control of the
code, but refuse to manage the project?  I ask again:  what are your plans for
the future of Open Simulator?  It's ok to say you don't have any, let's make
some!

I'll throw out some ideas based on the MOSES goals and objectives:

1)  Scale limitations lifted.  We need a system that is governed by its
available hardware and network resources, not bound by software limits.

2)  Let's create clear definitions of "stability".

3)  Clear and up-to-date API documentation.

4)  Clear and up-to-date OS deployment guidance under numerous typical network
topologies.

5)  Bug identification & reduction.

6)  Efficient ray tracing.  Useful for simulation of sensors as well as
naturalized bot interactions.

7)  N-body physics.  Would be nice to have vehicles that can follow terrain
and not look like Star Wars land speeders.  Would also be nice to have more
natural avatar movement rather than the rigid animations we use now.

What are yours?  Anyone?

v/r -doug

Dr. Douglas Maxwell
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
(c) <a href="tel:%28407%29%20242-0209" value="+14072420209" target="_blank">(407) 242-0209



-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Justin Clark-Casey
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 7:40 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

I won't comment much over future direction.  However, Overte was never a
governing entity, it was set up only to manage CLAs and maybe some other
things in the future (which never got realized).  Power over development
direction has always been with the developers.

CLAs for open-source projects tend to come from corporations running those
projects that are very worried about getting sued.  The vast majority have no
such structures.  It is very debatable whether anything other than the
open-source license is needed.


And there are many different project structures out there.  Linux, for
example, is controlled by a single individual who, along with a group of
authorized lieutenants, controls everything that goes into the codebase.  That
is an evolution since Linus used to be the sole committer (and got overwhelmed
by it).

The direction of evolution is not inevitably to some managing organization.
Or at the very least, the developers much always be in charge of what happens
to the codebase.



On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US)
<[hidden email]> wrote:


        Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
        Caveats: NONE

        Projects evolve.

        I couldn't begin to estimate the amount of work that has gone into this
        valuable project.  The potential for technical and economic success is
        profound and I see a bright future for the Open Simulator.  That said, I fear
        we are at a crossroads at this time with this project.

        It is unclear at this time what the maintainers of the Open Simulator code
        have planned for the project.  Is there a roadmap or some sort of
        goals/objectives you are working against?  What development targets would you
        like to see met in 12, 16, and 24 months from now?

        The MOSES project has needs & requirements that we are stepping up and
        supporting with internal development, but we aren't the drivers for the Open
        Simulator project.  We've done our own internal gap analysis and determined
        where in the OS code there should be investment in stability, monitoring, and
        scalability improvements.  In short, we are returning our code to you to
        adhere and abide by applicable derivative source code licensing terms.

        I believe the removal of the Overte as a formal governing entity is a mistake
        if you plan to encourage participation from business and government.  The CLA
        was viewed by my organization as a formalized relationship acknowledging the
        legal responsibility of open source code stewardship and use.

        If this were simply a hobby, then Overte and the CLA would not be needed.
        However, the Open Simulator is being used by businesses charging money for
        service, by researchers studying human behavior and technical behavior, by
        educators, and more.  Like it or not, you have created a product that needs
        management and attention at a higher level than the ad-hoc method that is
        currently your standard operating procedures.

        Project management must evolve.

        As projects are started at the grass roots and then emerge as valued
        commodities, the need for different styles of management is required.  A
        project with two active developers is different than a project with 20 or
200.
        If the management does not evolve, then the project will be limited and
growth
        is not possible.  I encourage you to think about a new structure that can
        handle influx of large amounts of donated code in a short time.  The kinds of
        investments needed to make this a world class simulator requires you to step
        up and begin project planning.

        This is a community effort.

        If the community values this work and would like to see it grow or even
        receive maintenance, then the community must voice.  This code does not
belong
        in the hands of a gov't agency or corporate entity.  This code belongs in the
        hands of a strong non-profit that can handle grant and contract funds to pay
a
        staff of maintainers, code reviewers, testers, and functional area code
        managers.  This could be an Overte spin-off, or even an academic institution
        of some kind.

        I've given you a glimpse into what the next 9 months of development for the
        MOSES related Open Simulator issues.  We came in this spring at a time when
        development seemed to be winding down and things were quiet after the 0.8.x
        releases.  What will you do when we reach the logical conclusion of our work?
        What is next for Open Simulator?

        I look forward to your feedback and constructive discourse.

        v/r -doug

        Dr. Douglas Maxwell
        Science and Technology Manager
        Virtual World Strategic Applications
        U.S. Army Research Lab
        Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
        (c) <a href="tel:%28407%29%20242-0209" value="+14072420209" target="_blank">(407) 242-0209



        Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
        Caveats: NONE



        _______________________________________________
        Opensim-dev mailing list
        [hidden email]
        http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev





Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

justincc
In reply to this post by Cinder Roxley
On point 2, the coding standards are pretty much the C# guidelines at [1] (I thought there used to be a longer doc but can't find it on a quick google).

On point 3, this is very true.  It's a problem of the codebase having grown organically with many different developers of varying skill levels.

During the 2013 and 2014 OSCC conferences I spent a lot of time on scalability but much of this was ad-hoc fixes or measurement tooling.  The advantage of being extremely thread happy is that if one thread gets blocked (e.g. waiting on I/O) then this won't halt other threads (assuming it isn't in a locked region).  But the disadvantage is unpredictable performance and overhead though I don't know how much.

I believe any VW engine eventually need something like an OS scheduler to control work performance and make sure that CPU utilization is efficient and handles degradation gracefully at 100% utilization.  However, that's an extremely tough problem and I'm not sure it's even possible in a managed language.

On point 4, I believe any future is gradual evolution.  The investment required for radical change is simply too high.  Perhaps it would be easier if some way can be found to break apart monolithic VW systems but then monoliths have continued to win in the operating system space (Linux vs micro-kernels for instance) and I think operating systems have many similarities with user script executing virtual worlds.

-- Justin

-- Justin

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Cinder Roxley <[hidden email]> wrote:
On August 13, 2015 at 8:14:30 AM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) ([hidden email]) wrote:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED 
Caveats: NONE 

Can someone explain to me why the core developers insist on control of the 
code, but refuse to manage the project? I ask again: what are your plans for 
the future of Open Simulator? It's ok to say you don't have any, let's make 
some! 

I'll throw out some ideas based on the MOSES goals and objectives: 

1) Scale limitations lifted. We need a system that is governed by its 
available hardware and network resources, not bound by software limits. 

2) Let's create clear definitions of "stability". 

3) Clear and up-to-date API documentation. 

4) Clear and up-to-date OS deployment guidance under numerous typical network 
topologies. 

5) Bug identification & reduction. 

6) Efficient ray tracing. Useful for simulation of sensors as well as 
naturalized bot interactions. 

7) N-body physics. Would be nice to have vehicles that can follow terrain 
and not look like Star Wars land speeders. Would also be nice to have more 
natural avatar movement rather than the rigid animations we use now. 

What are yours? Anyone? 

v/r -doug

This can be considered my “wish list” as I don’t really have a say in what happens, but I’m willing to put in a fair share of work in seeing that it can be done if others agree these are desirable targets:

1) Restating what Doug has mentioned, Clear and up-to-date API documentation. This hinders contributors, myself included, from working on things and leads to a lot of frustration and disappointed from well-intentioned folks.

2) A coding standard that defines and formalizes the style of code used throughout the codebase and is adhered to and enforced and should be pointed to often and regularly for contributions. Good code is easy to read and manageable. A formal coding standard is a good step in that direction.

3) OpenSim is a thread monster. There doesn’t seem to be any sort of approach to how threading is handled. This I think would fall under Doug’s criteria for #1.

4) I think it’s time to hop off the fence and decide whether to maintain the Second Life protocol compatibility, (Which, let’s be honest, is pretty lacking. There’s a lot missing post-2010.) or to break new ground. Linden Lab has apparently made their decision regarding that. There are viewer developers out there willing to work with OpenSimulator is doing this. I am one of them. I just can’t be in IRC all the time, but I want to do this with you guys and I know there are others out there willing to put in the work to build clients to connect to new and better worlds with sensible protocols.

Please don’t take any of this as criticism as it is not meant as such. I appreciate all the work that everyone on this project and who is affiliated with it does.

-- 
Cinder Roxley
Sent with Airmail

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Gavin Hird
This post has NOT been accepted by the mailing list yet.
In reply to this post by Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
Repost as the original never reached the list. Perhaps this time: 

--

Thanks Doug for opening this discussion.

In many ways OpenSim is a product in search of a market. – I deliberately use the word product as it is the basis for other products both commercial and non-commercial. 

It was said earlier that the overall goalpost has been to reach parity with SecondLife, which in many respects the product has been successful at. It has also strayed away from that goalpost in adding functionality such as Hypergrid, which is in my opinion is the only real strength of the product, while other functionality such as VAR regions have been so,so successful and probably stalled development in areas where more effort is needed. 

  
In lack of a roadmap I will make the following suggestions for how to progress the OpenSim product.

1. Recognize OpenSim is indeed a product and manage it as such

2. Spend a “Snow Leopard” year and fix functionality that does not work, needs refinement and work to establish LSL parity. 

3. Rewrite all services that relies on serving http from mono to use Apache

4. Make sure both MySQL and PostgreSQL database support is solid and works for all functionality. Do not accept changes that does not fully support all database adapters in the product. 

5. Harden the product to make sure it scales to reasonable size with the supported database adapters (SQLite being the exception.) Goalposts should be concurrencies of 1000, 5000, 20000.  Since OpenSim scales quite gracefully through horizontal scaling in Hypergrid, there is no need to go to database sizes like we have seen in SecondLife (300+ TB) 

6. Make it possible to authenticate via an LDAP (AD or other LDAP) for easier integration in organizations (Universities often have sizable LDAPs)

All of the above is pretty boring, so it might need funding to get steady progress

7. Start working on a new avatar with configurable rigging. The new avatar mesh should be able to accept current system clothing and skins via alternate UV maps on the mesh. 

8. Improve the animation system to support the configurable rigging

9. Support morph targets on meshes (the current avatar has morph targets for the shape sliders, but no other mesh can have them.)

10. Introduce shared inventories between alt avatar entities, where the inventory is linked to one ID (i.e. real person or organization). The current way or organizing inventories blows up the size of asset servers by heavy duplication between alt accounts wether on same or distributed grids (hypergrid).

11. Linked to the above use the capability to significantly improve content protection across grids. Marketplaces should be able to opt in-out of distributing (classes of) content to unknown entities. 

12. If the goal for OpenSim as a product is broad market distribution and share, the product must be redesigned to accept mobile clients – which probably should be regarded as the standard client in the future. By designing for VR devices with very limited distribution or even market potential one will limit the reach of the product. This does not say it is not possible to develop highly sophisticated and even lucrative solutions and use cases without mobile support, but the entire market is fast moving to very powerful systems in the palm of someone’s hand. Embrace it. 

This sounds like a LOT to chew on and it is. TBH I don’t think most of the above will be possible without substantial funding to move OpenSim, the product, forward at a predictable pace. 

Cheers,
Geir aka Gavin



On 11. aug. 2015, at 18.59, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) [via opensim-dev] <[hidden email]> wrote:

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Projects evolve.

I couldn't begin to estimate the amount of work that has gone into this
valuable project.  The potential for technical and economic success is
profound and I see a bright future for the Open Simulator.  That said, I fear
we are at a crossroads at this time with this project.

It is unclear at this time what the maintainers of the Open Simulator code
have planned for the project.  Is there a roadmap or some sort of
goals/objectives you are working against?  What development targets would you
like to see met in 12, 16, and 24 months from now?

The MOSES project has needs & requirements that we are stepping up and
supporting with internal development, but we aren't the drivers for the Open
Simulator project.  We've done our own internal gap analysis and determined
where in the OS code there should be investment in stability, monitoring, and
scalability improvements.  In short, we are returning our code to you to
adhere and abide by applicable derivative source code licensing terms.

I believe the removal of the Overte as a formal governing entity is a mistake
if you plan to encourage participation from business and government.  The CLA
was viewed by my organization as a formalized relationship acknowledging the
legal responsibility of open source code stewardship and use.

If this were simply a hobby, then Overte and the CLA would not be needed.
However, the Open Simulator is being used by businesses charging money for
service, by researchers studying human behavior and technical behavior, by
educators, and more.  Like it or not, you have created a product that needs
management and attention at a higher level than the ad-hoc method that is
currently your standard operating procedures.

Project management must evolve.

As projects are started at the grass roots and then emerge as valued
commodities, the need for different styles of management is required.  A
project with two active developers is different than a project with 20 or 200.
If the management does not evolve, then the project will be limited and growth
is not possible.  I encourage you to think about a new structure that can
handle influx of large amounts of donated code in a short time.  The kinds of
investments needed to make this a world class simulator requires you to step
up and begin project planning.

This is a community effort.

If the community values this work and would like to see it grow or even
receive maintenance, then the community must voice.  This code does not belong
in the hands of a gov't agency or corporate entity.  This code belongs in the
hands of a strong non-profit that can handle grant and contract funds to pay a
staff of maintainers, code reviewers, testers, and functional area code
managers.  This could be an Overte spin-off, or even an academic institution
of some kind.

I've given you a glimpse into what the next 9 months of development for the
MOSES related Open Simulator issues.  We came in this spring at a time when
development seemed to be winding down and things were quiet after the 0.8.x
releases.  What will you do when we reach the logical conclusion of our work?
What is next for Open Simulator?

I look forward to your feedback and constructive discourse.

v/r -doug

Dr. Douglas Maxwell
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
(c) (407) 242-0209



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
<a href="x-msg://12/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&amp;node=7580466&amp;i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow" link="external" class="">[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

smime.p7s (7K) Download Attachment



If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://opensim-dev.2196679.n2.nabble.com/Everything-that-has-a-beginning-has-an-end-tp7580444p7580466.html
To start a new topic under opensim-dev, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from opensim-dev, click here.
NAML

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
In reply to this post by justincc
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

I'm pleased to see the discussion stimulated thoughtful responses.  A number of you have PM'd me with similar questions, so I'll answer some of them here:

1.  Does the MOSES project want to manage Open Simulator?  No.  I have very specific training and education requirements that the MOSES prototype satisfies, but the Open Simulator development is quite broad and would need leadership that cares about issues such as entertainment and profit-motivated business models.

2.  Do you (Doug Maxwell) want to manage Open Simulator?  No.  It would be a conflict of interest given that I am a federal employee and my project responsibilities include funding the code modifications to the platform to achieve the mission S&T goals.

3.  Does the MOSE project want to become part of the Open Simulator Core Development team?  No.  As subjective, disorganized and chaotic as the dev code acceptance process seems to be, it is still your community.  Our code development culture is quite rigid and I fear our presence would be too disruptive.  We plan and schedule everything since funding is tied to the effort.  There's eight of us working on PhysX at the moment to meet the Sept deadline for testing and evaluation.  

4.  Why do you care about whether or not the Open Simulator developers accept MOSES code contributions?  I have seen many examples of military funded science and technology projects not emerge from the labs.  They serve a limited purpose and are retired when complete.  The work we are doing with MOSES will provide valuable guidance to the Army acquisition community when specifying requirements for the next generation of infantry soldier skills trainers.  We also are making usage discoveries in the field that guide our interface design decisions.  My job is not to create operational training systems, but rather to investigate gaps in our training and find solutions.  I don't want to see the MOSES prototype forgotten after it is retired at the logical end of our investigation.  The code we are pouring into the Open Simulator to address common deficiencies in performance across all virtual world platforms should be re-used to benefit the community as a whole.

5.  Are we holding any code back?  No.  I've made it clear to all the MOSES developers that there is a clear delineation between the simulator and the content it serves.  This makes life easier on all fronts.  By hanging our code off the GitHub, we can collaborate with other Gov't researcher (civilian and military) quite efficiently.  We've created MOSES-in-a-Box for the agencies who cannot expose their networks to the open Internet, but can still participate internally in MOSES related activities.  

6.  Are we holding any content back?  Yes.  Lots.  We provide sanitized examples of usage through our web site with some OAR downloads, but any scenario that has accurate information in it is not for public consumption.

7.  What will MOSES work on after PhysX?  Our profiling activities discovered the Open Simulator was spending most of its time in the Physics, Client Manager, and Script Engines.  BulletSim was low hanging fruit for us since it is single threaded and we are genuinely curious to see if GPU acceleration through PhysX will have a meaningful impact on simulator performance.  Sean Mondesire and Glenn Martin are also working on a distributed PhysX server that is separate from Open Simulator that we hope will have major performance gains.  After PhysX, we will make the decision to either tackle the client manager or the script engine.  Much of this is derivative from the DSG work done in 2013, however instead of middle-ware brokering synchronization of multiple Open Simulator instances with identical databases - this is truly breaking up the engine into major constituent pieces and distributing them across a network to spread load.

v/r -doug

Dr. Douglas Maxwell
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
(c) (407) 242-0209


-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Justin Clark-Casey
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 6:51 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

On point 2, the coding standards are pretty much the C# guidelines at [1] (I thought there used to be a longer doc but can't find it on a quick google).


On point 3, this is very true.  It's a problem of the codebase having grown organically with many different developers of varying skill levels.


During the 2013 and 2014 OSCC conferences I spent a lot of time on scalability but much of this was ad-hoc fixes or measurement tooling.  The advantage of being extremely thread happy is that if one thread gets blocked (e.g. waiting on I/O) then this won't halt other threads (assuming it isn't in a locked region).  But the disadvantage is unpredictable performance and overhead though I don't know how much.


I believe any VW engine eventually need something like an OS scheduler to control work performance and make sure that CPU utilization is efficient and handles degradation gracefully at 100% utilization.  However, that's an extremely tough problem and I'm not sure it's even possible in a managed language.


On point 4, I believe any future is gradual evolution.  The investment required for radical change is simply too high.  Perhaps it would be easier if some way can be found to break apart monolithic VW systems but then monoliths have continued to win in the operating system space (Linux vs micro-kernels for instance) and I think operating systems have many similarities with user script executing virtual worlds.


-- Justin


-- Justin


[1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff926074.aspx


On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Cinder Roxley <[hidden email]> wrote:


        On August 13, 2015 at 8:14:30 AM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) ([hidden email]) wrote:

               
                Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
                Caveats: NONE
               
                Can someone explain to me why the core developers insist on control of the
                code, but refuse to manage the project? I ask again: what are your plans for
                the future of Open Simulator? It's ok to say you don't have any, let's make
                some!
               
                I'll throw out some ideas based on the MOSES goals and objectives:
               
                1) Scale limitations lifted. We need a system that is governed by its
                available hardware and network resources, not bound by software limits.
               
                2) Let's create clear definitions of "stability".
               
                3) Clear and up-to-date API documentation.
               
                4) Clear and up-to-date OS deployment guidance under numerous typical network
                topologies.
               
                5) Bug identification & reduction.
               
                6) Efficient ray tracing. Useful for simulation of sensors as well as
                naturalized bot interactions.
               
                7) N-body physics. Would be nice to have vehicles that can follow terrain
                and not look like Star Wars land speeders. Would also be nice to have more
                natural avatar movement rather than the rigid animations we use now.
               
                What are yours? Anyone?
               
                v/r -doug

        This can be considered my “wish list” as I don’t really have a say in what happens, but I’m willing to put in a fair share of work in seeing that it can be done if others agree these are desirable targets:

        1) Restating what Doug has mentioned, Clear and up-to-date API documentation. This hinders contributors, myself included, from working on things and leads to a lot of frustration and disappointed from well-intentioned folks.

        2) A coding standard that defines and formalizes the style of code used throughout the codebase and is adhered to and enforced and should be pointed to often and regularly for contributions. Good code is easy to read and manageable. A formal coding standard is a good step in that direction.

        3) OpenSim is a thread monster. There doesn’t seem to be any sort of approach to how threading is handled. This I think would fall under Doug’s criteria for #1.

        4) I think it’s time to hop off the fence and decide whether to maintain the Second Life protocol compatibility, (Which, let’s be honest, is pretty lacking. There’s a lot missing post-2010.) or to break new ground. Linden Lab has apparently made their decision regarding that. There are viewer developers out there willing to work with OpenSimulator is doing this. I am one of them. I just can’t be in IRC all the time, but I want to do this with you guys and I know there are others out there willing to put in the work to build clients to connect to new and better worlds with sensible protocols.

        Please don’t take any of this as criticism as it is not meant as such. I appreciate all the work that everyone on this project and who is affiliated with it does.

       
        --
        Cinder Roxley
        Sent with Airmail

        _______________________________________________
        Opensim-dev mailing list
        [hidden email]
        http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
       
       



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

smime.p7s (7K) Download Attachment
12
Loading...