Hi David / Jim Regarding the experience, here's a link to a YouTube video for VLoggerCon - the conference center that they created in SL is absolutely stunning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdWjHxSJmnk I think that avatars provide a means for social interaction that isn't possible through IM alone. I'm still not sure what this all means at the moment, but I'm pretty sure we're witnessing the birth of a new medium of expression. What it means is anyone's guess ... Here's another video by Tao that shows some incredible production values: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfDdjBKVQOM&mode=related&search= I'm still chatting with folks who have SL experience to figure out what bandwidth requirements there will be and whether this is even possible. I think that if we do go ahead with this that it will have to be in such a way that we set realistic expectations for folks attending in SL as well as working within the constraints of the technology. I'll report back on what I find out ... Cheers, -John http://www.iunknown.com > I tend to agree with Jim W. that I'm not clear what the advantages > are. I should probably state a couple of things, from the organizers' > perspective -- which I hope will help, though please keep in mind that > I don't really know what Second Life is. (I've tried to learn a little > since getting your email [which is why I hadn't responded to you] but > I'll go ahead and answer in ignorance :-) So I'm reacting to the kind > of thing I *think* it is, and the issues I *think* it would raise. If > I'm wrong, please fill me in. > > We're almost certainly not going to want AV feeds, other than the > official conference ones, set up during the conference. It's > logistically difficult, and would also raise the issue of allowing > another feed for another purpose, and another, and so forth. We're > not in a position to go down that path, I'm afraid. > > The bandwidth issues that Jim W. raised are also a concern. Getting > connected at conferences is always a challenge... and the lower the > ratio of bandwidth to constituency served (e.g., with IRC), the > better. > > In general, we want the in-person conference experience to be the full > in-person conference experience. Again, I'm saying this based on what > I think SL might be, rather than what it actually is or isn't... but > my concern is that the expectation would be raised that whether you're > at the conference or not, you're fully participant in the Q&A sessions > and so forth. We don't want to raise that expectation. We may handle > Q&A by having people queue up for a microphone, or by raised hands, or > questions submitted in advance by attendees, or whatever -- and those > logistics are going to be handled based on the in-person event and the > people who are there. > > That's my current take on it -- with the important disclaimer about my > ignorance included :-) > > > David > > -- > http://www.rubypowerandlight.com => Ruby/Rails training & consultancy > ----> SEE SPECIAL DEAL FOR RUBY/RAILS USERS GROUPS! <----- > http://dablog.rubypal.com => D[avid ]A[. ]B[lack's][ Web]log > http://www.manning.com/black => book, Ruby for Rails > http://www.rubycentral.org => Ruby Central, Inc. > >