To: VRML List
Once I had a dream.
Over the past few months it has slowly dawned that I am only dreaming
the dream.
This dream had thousands of people in it sharing in consensual
hallucination. The promise that virtual reality, built by the poeple was
getting much closer. I could be part of that building process, helping
out wherever my talents were of use. What started out as a promise, and
looked like being fulfilled, has been swept away by those who don't
share that dream.
From this point onwards I will no longer be actively involved in VRML.
This is a decision that it is finally time to exit a sinking ship.
There are many reasons for this. Before anyone says anything, it is not
because I am spitting the dummy over EAI issues. Far from it. It is an
exit because can no longer contribute anything useful and that my
interests have now wandered elsewhere as a result.
When I started in VRML in mid 1995, it was like a big family. Lots of
people all keen to see the technology grow. Pushing onwards with dreams
of Cyberspace Protocols, virtual reality, bots and other technologies,
we worked together to build the foundations of what could one day become
what we'd dreamed. There were the sacred texted like Neuromancer, Snow
Crash and Children of the Mind. Everybody had a reasonably good idea of
who was doing what. The people writing the spec were people. You could
fire off an email and expect to get a response. Had a problem with a
piece of the spec, you could ask for help and people would contribute.
People were willing to contribute for the greater good, not their
employer's pocket, and because they knew that it all evened out in the
end.
The arrival of VRML2.0 was a great time. We'd gotten a spec out the door
as a group. Sure there were plenty of holes in it, we knew that, but
most left the process feeling that they'd gotten their 2c worth of
input. The idea of an ISO spec was anticipated to help us on our way.
The VRMLC would be useful because it would bring some more formalisation
to the community's efforts. A gathering place in the park so that we
could mull over ideas, fix problems and generally continue to develop
the dream.
What happened is the opposite. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The work
to make VRML an ISO spec was the wrong direction to take. In doing so,
it requires a group to look after it. That group formed a consortium
that required dollars. When money becomes the object, everything else
gets pushed aside. The consortium became interested only in furthering
its own interests.
Whenever you see consortiums they use this wonderful euphamism called
"protecting its investment". You really think US$10K is an investment
for a company the size of Microsoft - bullshit. That's the Coke bill of
one programmer for a year. It has become a way of hijacking the work of
hundreds of developers like you and I to further their own ends. If we
do something that is useful towards their corporate domination they'll
take it. If it doesn't then they'll just ignore it despite the technical
merits of it.
I first sensed something was not quite right around Siggraph last year.
This VRML-NG thing was supposed to be about to start. Wandering around
Siggraph it was amazing to see the amount of acceptance VRML had in
every community except the commercial one. Just about every panel you
went to had VRML models or whatever. The interesting part was that it
was typically only being used for the static geometry part. Rarely were
the full power of VRML being exploited (Sid and the Penguins was the one
notable exception). But the feeling was there that the dollars were
starting to force their way into the issues. VRB members were grumbling
about being directed to provide certain answers. Many were (and are)
looking to get out. The consortium was starting things purely out of its
own financial interests not those around the spec or the user.
The same thing is happening within my company. Today we are using more
VRML than ever before. Demos and prototypes and applications. However,
even to these projects, VRML is a static geometry format. It gets loaded
into a 3D application and the 3D code is custom written. We're not using
VRML for the VR part. To us, and to most others it might as well be a 3D
geometry markup language like ChromeEffects. Part of this lays directly
at the feet of the browser vendors, others at the process failure
itself.
Put simply, the consortium and the working group process is a complete
failure. To date, I believe only one working group has ever actually
achieved something - The script working group made fundamental changes
to the working groups. This is not to debase the efforts of groups like
the DB and H-anim working groups. They have produced specifications and
a single implementation. Yet not one browser has taken these works and
made them into something useful. In my books, a successful working group
is one that creates something and has it accepted. Only one
implementation - typically by the person writing the spec - is not
"accepted" in my books. It is a person working for a personal (or
company) interest only. Without buy-in from others, it cannot be
considered anything else.
This is the great failure of the consortium. It should be there to
foster the development of the VRML effort. There is no chicken and egg
situation here. VRML existed, it formed a consortium to help out with
some of the uglier aspects like administration. The consortium should be
there to serve the community that created it, not to turn around and
slap it in the face and tell it to piss off.
A commercial entity cannot create a community. This has been attempted
many times in the past and every single one is a failure. The community
must form of its own accord around common interests. They cannot be
forcibly created.
This is exactly what is happening before your very eyes. The previous
versions of the VRML spec were written (effectively) by the community.
There were a couple of editors (always needs to be) but the winning
entry for VRML2.0 took just about all of the good ideas that came with
VRML 1.1 and formed it into a single unified spec. Sure SGI pretty
muched owned it, but the general ideas came from many places - Sony, and
individuals like Mitra all had something in the spec.
Constrast this to what has happened with the VRML3 spec. A process
document was posted. It ain't being followed folks. Just a piece of
paper to keep the minions apeased. Right now, the spec is being written
by three people that have avowed disintrest in VRML. Not only that, but
it's being done in privacy. There's no community consultation on this.
Most of what you suggested for VRML-NG is being ignored. There is
already at least one browser in the works.
By the Way, did anyone notice the email that the consortium sent out to
www-vrml notifying you all that positions on the VRB are up for
re-election? No, I thought not. Obviously they are interested in getting
people that have a technical understanding of VRML and 3D graphics to
apply for nominations.
People, The consortium controls the power over the ISO spec and the
process. They exist because we made the grounds for them to play in. Now
they're shafting us and using us as just little pawns in their game. One
that I am not willing to play.
Ever since I first stumbled across Linux in 1992 I've been a major
believer in the free software movement. There are many benefits to it,
not the least of which is the community aspects. In fact, that is one of
its strongest aspects. The complete sharing of ideas and ideals.
Scratching the itch. There is much to be learnt, and large corps just
don't seem to get it.
You see, VRML was built on the open source ethic. Throw everything out
there on the table and let people pick the bits of it, find the
holes/bugs and you end up with a much stronger product in the end. Peer
review is what it's about.
The Internet was built around the principles of sharing. In fact, almost
all of the fundamental underpinnings are built on that very principle.
There was no need for a consortium to control the Internet and all the
standards. Just a meeting of the minds by a purely voluntary
organisation - the IETF. Heck, not one part of the internet is an ISO
standard but it all works. Those that try to break it are quickly
dispatched as being ones that don't try to work for the common good.
This is the way VRML was, and should be.
Frankly, making VRML an ISO standard was the biggest mistake we made. We
could have looked after it in house. Those doubting it, look at the
Internet, Linux, Apache, BIND (the DNS system) and countless other very
large scale projects where everyone is a volunteer. Wow, it works, and
there's no consortium needed.
If you doubt the capabilities of a community, have a look at the Open
Group and when they attempted to highjack the X windows standards. Sure
they are the owner of the standard, but they also had a lot of source
available. Guess who the biggest distributor of X server software is -
XFree: the open source implementation of the X server and client
software. There's some 150MB+ of source code there. When the Open Group
decided to change the licensing of X11R6.4, the community walked away.
They split and started running their own shop. If the consortium was not
going to support the community, then to hell with the consortium - that
was their opinion. So bad was this backlash that they relented a couple
of months later and returned it to the original community licensing. We
should be taking this same attitude to our consortium. We were the
people who made them, they should be answering to our wishes. X was the
same way, it started with a university group (MIT), grew a huge
community and then went commercial. Seem familiar?
Over the years, I have spent a lot of time chatting with Len. We talk
about all sorts of things. Len has this theory about the way things work
with specs and successful stuff. First you start with a few people with
ideas. A lot of small startups run around with these ideas implementing
them. Slowly, the bigger companies move in and buy out the smaller ones
or the smaller ones drop out of the race. The result is that inevitably
a spec ends up in the hands of a couple of big over-valued giants. Well,
I have to disagree. While this may be the case today, it is only a
temporary blip on the radar. You see, fundamentally, people don't like
being herded. The "Open Source" revolution you see in the news these
days is nothing new. It is people returning to the ways that make it
better for them and all their peers. Linux et al are the return of the
culture that brings back value to what people do. In a few years, unless
something is completely open, it won't be accepted. The VRMLC is
attempting to stave off the inevitable. Someone will come along and
invent a new VRML, the player, the specs will be open. It will be easy
to use and the VRMLC will find themselves as an anachronism.
Until now, a lot of you have probably just turned off, considering it
another one of my rants. I've said this all as a warning about what is
happening. I'm not leaving just because I'm pissed at the consortium.
They are the last straw in a number of reasons.
That is, I want to be involved in real distributed virtual reality. The
simple fact is that we just aren't there yet with many of the basic
technologies that are needed to make this happen. I was expecting big
things from it, but they just haven't eventuated. I got involved because
I felt that we could build on the foundations and start enabling that
sort of environment. I wanted to help build that infrastructure. As I
realise that many of the core pieces are still missing, increasingly, my
attention is being drawn to these lower level functional parts. Things
like J3D, URNs and such are what need to be attended to before the
promise of a virtual reality markup language can be realised. My
abilities are in seeing the holes, filling them up with code and making
sure everything is consistent and these areas are where I think I can
contribute the most at this point in time. My efforts, and I suspect
most others, are wasted hanging around here now.
The problems of public support of VRML has also contributed to this
effort. If I felt that the consortium was paying attention and looking
after the needs of the grassroots that fostered its development then I
may have stuck around. I've alluded to this a number of times in my
posts before. Too much self interest by the consortium has killed the
cat.
Why the hell was the VRMLC seeking to extend its charter to include more
3D technologies when it couldn't even foster the development of the
single standard it was supposed to be looking after? I can only be
cynical and suggest the worst: It's a grab for power by the likes of
Microsft and Platinum for their own gains, not for the benefits of
virtual reality. If they are in the _self_appointed_ role of all web 3D
standards (implying anything that runs 3D and over the internet) then
nothing can be official without their blessing. What a crock. Why on
earth does a single company need to buy both prominent VRML browser
companies? Because it feels like it?
You will still see me around a lot. I'm heavily involved in Java3D and
the IETF now. I'll be attending the usual collection of conferences like
JavaOne and Siggraph. I'm going to be popping up in places that you
least expect.
So for now, it is goodbye to the VRML community. I no longer feel proud
to wave the VRML flag.
All in the name of making a dream reality.
Subject: So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
--
Justin Couch
Senior Software Engineer VRML-Java Author
ADI Ltd, Systems Group.
justin@vlc.com.au http://www.vlc.com.au/~justin/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
frames or one frame for many lights?" -Suocomandante Marcos
-------------------------------------------------------------------