Re: RE : Re: Federation protocols

Hi Goix

On Jun 12, 2013 10:22 AM, "Goix Laurent Walter" <
laurentwalter.goix@telecomitalia.it> wrote:
>
> The more i follow this thread the more i see 2 teams wih different
priorities in this group: one focused on discussing all the current
projects promoting parallel initiatives that focus on specific
topics/issues with little care about interop between them for now, the
other wanting to select one project as reference for interop and true
deployments and build on/evolve it progressively.
>

I don't think there is anyone on this list that doesn't care about
interoperability.

The key word you used is "priority", which I think is quite fitting.

We all share the same ideals (more or less) or we wouldn't be on this list.
We just have a different set of priorities on how best we (as individuals)
can contribute the most effectively.

That said, I'm not sure I agree with your definitions of the camps though,
as (I can only speak for myself) I don't think I fit into either of them. :)

I would describe camp 1 not as "discussing, promoting, with little regard
to interop" but as perhaps narrowing scope and solving actual problems now,
approaching from different angles, and looking for the next steps to move
forward and increase interoperability.

Whereas camp 2 seems to want to "provide the answer to the problem" as a
full, complete, solution in one united effort.

I could be off, but that's my perspective.

We all have different qualities, skills and temperaments. We shouldn't
expect everyone to be able to effectively contribute in the way we think is
best.

> Should we formalize these 2 teams to start some concrete collaborations?

Sure, that could help to avoid these kinds of "chasing our tail"
discussions in the future.