59:10 – Q: Do you think Rodvick, Linden Lab CEO, is planning to kill off TPV’s?

Something happens at 59:50 and the answer breaks off and resumes. It looks like an edit in the video. The answer given on both sides of the ‘edit’ is Jessica thinks no. She goes into the reason the Lab went open source way back when. Jessica gets into the history.

Originally the Lab went open source hoping to get developers to add code to the LL Viewer. But, code was getting submitted and not accepted. The Lab didn’t feel the format and writing conformed to there standards, the solutions was not elegant enough or was to hacky, etc. etc. The result was the outside developers compiled a viewer for their self. They later passed around copies for their friends. Eventually this grew into the TPV’s we have today.

If the Lab did not want TPV’s, they could lose the source, change the data stream and effectively lock out TPV’s. So, it seems obvious they want TPV’s.

It is confirmed there was a crash, see 59:50. Some questions lost.

01:02:00 – Q: Long if then therefore argument therefore question about shared experience and different render pipelines.

Jessica sees allowing render pipeline changes as an inconsistency. The Parcel Windlight is a violation and inconsistency because the Lab is allowing it to remain. This creates a large grey space. The result is TPV Dev’s will have to ask the Lab about many of the things they consider developing to find out if it is considered a shared experience change.

01:04:15 – Q: If this policy were to be enforced Phoenix 1600 would have to be removed. How would this affect the FS/PH Team?

The FS/PH Team has built in a feature that allows them to block their viewer. The thinking was if they did something that unexpected created a problem, the could block the viewer version and keep it off the grid. The user would see a notice that the FS/PH Team has blocked the viewer because…. yadda yadda yadda. So, please download a new version. They consider it a drastic last step for only serious issues.

Talking with Oz they find that there is no need to block the older viewers. So, 1600 with True Online Status is usable. Oz has asked that the next release have it removed and would like the next release to be ‘soon.’

As best Jessica knows there will be no Lab actions taken to block older version of the viewers.

01:06:50 – Q: relevant to all TPV Dev’s, why would you continue to develop if you are not free to innovate?

They can still innovate. They are only being restricted on shared experience features. Actually, shared experience features created by TPV Dev’s are very few. The majority of innovations are not shared experience features.

Some measure of innovation will be stifled because of 2-dot-k policy. But, the majority of motivation remains for Dev’s.

01:09:50 – Q: There is a beta and other grids, what about having a sandbox there for such shared experience feature development?

Dev’s like the idea and will be suggesting it to the Lab in a coming meeting. They hope to get 2-dot-k more explicitly worded and definitive.

01:10:50 – Q: Address the people who provide support for viewers and the problem of viewer versions.

The Firestorm and Phoenix viewer place a tag in the group chat stream so each chat line has a viewer ID to assist support people. Many people asking for help have no idea which viewer they are using much less a the version.

Those tags have to go away. It is going to mean a huge waste of time as people ask for and find out what viewer and version someone is on so they can answer their question. Life is tough. I run into that all the time on the Answers forum. So much so I have a standard copy/paste text telling peeps how to get the info and paste it into their post. This is an obvious shared feature request for the JIRA. Getting some easier way to convey that information.\

At 01:22:00 there is an explanation that the pre-appended ID in FS/PH group chat is changing to an opt-in feature. However, that will still create more work for support as they work to get people to turn it on.

01:12:30 – Q: Why is it LL Viewers must have the shared experience features before a TPV?

It is absolutely one sided. But, the Lab owns Second Life and they are allowed to be one sided. It is one of the benefits of living with a free and free market society. One can enjoy the fruits of one’s labor without being told what to do… sort of…

01:14:15 – Q: In a case a independent dev makes some need feature and the Lab incorporates it, would the dev be paid and would they get credit?

Paid no. Credit yes. Open source is about doing things for free. There is a philosophical discussion here. Rather than paraphrase it, I suggest you listen to it to get an accurate flavor of Jessica’s thinking.

01:17:30 – Q: Long question, any discussion of dev’s getting paid like Qarl?

No. this too is a philosophical answer.

01:18:30 – Q: Isn’t the stifling policy issued because TPV’s are leaving the Lab in the dust on new features?

There are a lot of angry people that have assigned motives to Lindens.

01:19:00 – Q: Will ad-boards be broken?

Yes. This is another of those places where things have changed since the question was asked. The Lab is looking at a way to provide for this type of legitimate use.

01:20:45 – Q: What is this I am hearing about the possibility of removing Phoenix Viewer 1600?

It is NOT being removed. The feature many think would cause the removal is the True Online Status.

1:22:45 – Q: Not everyone wants the shared experience of a last name as resident.

This too has changed since the meeting. Rod has come out and stated last names will not be coming back. But, the name Resident should be causing less problems and disappearing from view in the future.