The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

johannes
Doug,

I like all of those ideas.  They would make my life significantly easier and
my research far more plausible!

Chris

George Mason University
Fairfax, VA

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

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
[hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:38 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Opensim-dev Digest, Vol 17, Issue 22

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: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)
      (Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US))
   2. Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED) (Blake)


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

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:13:52 +0000
From: "Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US)"
        <[hidden email]>
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?)
        (UNCLASSIFIED)
Message-ID:
       
<[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 5629 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20150813/ab16433
e/attachment-0001.bin>

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

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:37:20 -0400
From: Blake <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?)
        (UNCLASSIFIED)
Message-ID:
        <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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) (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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20150813/40c5860
c/attachment.html>

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

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


End of Opensim-dev Digest, Vol 17, Issue 22
*******************************************

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