And, re the relationship between the emergence of standards and code, what I said was that standards will emerge from “rough consensus and working code” Without people you cannot have something called “consensus” and, of course, people are writing the code too.

And, Linden Lab’s interoperability initiative with IBM comes from “managers of real companies with real stake.”

Ugo, look. They aren’t saying anything new they haven’t said at the last 6 panels in the last year or more. There isn’t the innovation. It’s not evident, regardless of all the ruckus kicked up. Why would some project basically reverse-engineering the Lindens’ SL be characterized as “innovative”? Innovative is what you get at Multiverse or some other company completely.

And there’s nothing to say that people screwing around on the test bench with Legos are the ones to whom we must look for standards. Standards don’t emerge from code in real life, they emerge when people — not code — managers of real companies with real stake — establish consensus on business requirements. When there’s a reason to connect through standards, they’ll connect, without people who have been playing in sandboxes with blocks.

In fact, this is merely another form of vapour standards — virtual worlds are very good at getting the people who make vapour standards into an immersive setting where they really imagine they are doing something.

And P.S. we don’t *want* them to teleport out of SL into other worlds with our stuff and our IP — because they don’t believe in making a permissions regime. Until there are overarching agreements in place about how c/m/t will be visibly implemented and work inworld, they shouldn’t be hastening. They are all about pipe, and all about connection, and not about content.