RubyConf in Second Life?

ruby-talk
1

Since RubyConf this year has sold out so rapidly, I was wondering if
there would be interest in setting up a mixed-reality event in Second
Life.

I think it would be really cool if we could be the first developer
conference to be simulcast in Second Life. It would also help with the
problem of folks who wanted to go but can't.

I spent some time hanging out with some Linden Lab folks at the
Lang.Net conference last week, and there's interest on Linden's part
in helping to set this up.

I don't really know my way around Second Life all that well, and I
know that there are some Ruby folk who are already hanging out there -
perhaps we could marshal our forces to make this happen?

Thoughts would be welcome,
-John
http://www.iunknown.com

2

John Lam wrote:

Since RubyConf this year has sold out so rapidly, I was wondering if
there would be interest in setting up a mixed-reality event in Second
Life.

That's a really interesting idea, count me in, and I will be willing to
help with it as needed.

Thoughts would be welcome,
-John
http://www.iunknown.com

Best regards,

Julian I. Kamil <julian.kamil@gmail.com>

3

Sort of. I've heard about Second Life, but haven't really studied it.
According to Wikipedia, Second Life tops out on a "private island" at
100 simultaneous users in the server. That means that of the 240
attendees, only 100 could be there (if they wanted) -- and that
external people would have even more problems.

If Linden Lab is able to solve this so that we could have potentially
a *lot* of people observing from Second Life (and if it were possible,
for example, to have "live" video broadcast in that Second Life
region), then it might be really interesting.

But I'd try to chase it down at that point.

-austin

···

On 8/8/06, John Lam <drjflam@gmail.com> wrote:

Since RubyConf this year has sold out so rapidly, I was wondering if
there would be interest in setting up a mixed-reality event in Second
Life.

I think it would be really cool if we could be the first developer
conference to be simulcast in Second Life. It would also help with the
problem of folks who wanted to go but can't.

--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * austin@halostatue.ca * You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. // halo • statue
               * austin@zieglers.ca

4

Hi --

Since RubyConf this year has sold out so rapidly, I was wondering if
there would be interest in setting up a mixed-reality event in Second
Life.

I think it would be really cool if we could be the first developer
conference to be simulcast in Second Life. It would also help with the
problem of folks who wanted to go but can't.

I spent some time hanging out with some Linden Lab folks at the
Lang.Net conference last week, and there's interest on Linden's part
in helping to set this up.

I don't really know my way around Second Life all that well, and I
know that there are some Ruby folk who are already hanging out there -
perhaps we could marshal our forces to make this happen?

Thoughts would be welcome,

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 :slight_smile: 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 :slight_smile:

David

···

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, John Lam wrote:

--
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
Ruby for Rails => book, Ruby for Rails
http://www.rubycentral.org => Ruby Central, Inc.

5

Thanks for the pointer to that info, Austin! I'm checking with the
folks at Linden now on that limitation, and I'll get back to y'all
once I get the goods.

-John

···

Sort of. I've heard about Second Life, but haven't really studied it.
According to Wikipedia, Second Life tops out on a "private island" at
100 simultaneous users in the server. That means that of the 240
attendees, only 100 could be there (if they wanted) -- and that
external people would have even more problems.

If Linden Lab is able to solve this so that we could have potentially
a *lot* of people observing from Second Life (and if it were possible,
for example, to have "live" video broadcast in that Second Life
region), then it might be really interesting.

But I'd try to chase it down at that point.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * austin@halostatue.ca * You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. // halo • statue
               * austin@zieglers.ca

6

I've got a response from the Linden folks. Each region (16 acre chunk
of land) is managed by 1 CPU, and the limit of avatars per region is
on the order of 50-60 (I believe the server limit in Wikipedia is
based on their current 2CPU per server configuration).

However, you can place the conference at the *intersection* of 4
regions, which can increase capacity up to 200+ in SL. They can rent
us a region at the rate of 3k Lindens per day (which is about $10 USD
on today's currency). So that works out to a cost of 4 * 10 * 3 days
or $120 to host 200 attendees in SL. I have no problem getting my
company (ObjectSharp) to kick in the funding for the space rental.

We could setup a registration page to limit the attendees in SL to a
capped limit. But that nearly doubles attendence assuming that we can
keep the number of real-life attendees in the SL space to a reasonable
limit.

Since this is rental of space, everything there will be torn down at
the end of the conference. But I think that's OK for the initial run
of this thing. Perhaps we could also get RubyCentral to buy some land
in SL so that the Ruby community can have a permanent presence in SL?

Thoughts?
-John

···

Sort of. I've heard about Second Life, but haven't really studied it.
According to Wikipedia, Second Life tops out on a "private island" at
100 simultaneous users in the server. That means that of the 240
attendees, only 100 could be there (if they wanted) -- and that
external people would have even more problems.

7

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.

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:

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

···

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 :slight_smile: 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 :slight_smile:

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
Ruby for Rails => book, Ruby for Rails
http://www.rubycentral.org => Ruby Central, Inc.

8

John Lam wrote:

Thanks for the pointer to that info, Austin! I'm checking with the
folks at Linden now on that limitation, and I'll get back to y'all
once I get the goods.

This sounds quite interesting. I've been meaning to poke into SL, but I'm concerned that it may become a massive time sink for me.

Still, it offers lots of opportunity.

···

--
James Britt

"People want simple stories."

9

Well, wouldn't it just be better to ask the Rubyists of Second Life if we
can use their space? They have a 4-parcel island already available for Ruby
meetings and conferences with seating and facilities built and ready to go.

BTW, there's also pricin for nonprofits on parcels of land; I believe the
folks hosting RoSL paid only about $150/parcel, far cheaper than the $1250
it normally costs.

···

On 8/9/06, John Lam <drjflam@gmail.com> wrote:

I've got a response from the Linden folks. Each region (16 acre chunk
of land) is managed by 1 CPU, and the limit of avatars per region is
on the order of 50-60 (I believe the server limit in Wikipedia is
based on their current 2CPU per server configuration).

However, you can place the conference at the *intersection* of 4
regions, which can increase capacity up to 200+ in SL. They can rent
us a region at the rate of 3k Lindens per day (which is about $10 USD
on today's currency). So that works out to a cost of 4 * 10 * 3 days
or $120 to host 200 attendees in SL. I have no problem getting my
company (ObjectSharp) to kick in the funding for the space rental.

We could setup a registration page to limit the attendees in SL to a
capped limit. But that nearly doubles attendence assuming that we can
keep the number of real-life attendees in the SL space to a reasonable
limit.

Since this is rental of space, everything there will be torn down at
the end of the conference. But I think that's OK for the initial run
of this thing. Perhaps we could also get RubyCentral to buy some land
in SL so that the Ruby community can have a permanent presence in SL?

Thoughts?
-John
http://www.iunknown.com

> Sort of. I've heard about Second Life, but haven't really studied it.
> According to Wikipedia, Second Life tops out on a "private island" at
> 100 simultaneous users in the server. That means that of the 240
> attendees, only 100 could be there (if they wanted) -- and that
> external people would have even more problems.

--
Contribute to RubySpec! @ Welcome to headius.com
Charles Oliver Nutter @ headius.blogspot.com
Ruby User @ ruby.mn
JRuby Developer @ www.jruby.org
Application Architect @ www.ventera.com

10

John Lam wrote:

I've got a response from the Linden folks. Each region (16 acre chunk
of land) is managed by 1 CPU, and the limit of avatars per region is
on the order of 50-60 (I believe the server limit in Wikipedia is
based on their current 2CPU per server configuration).

This sounds really cool ... but I have some questions

(1) I'm not sure what people are expecting. Are you expecting attendees
to be interacting with non-attendees during the course of the
conference. Remember that attendees will be fighting over limited
wireless bandwidth and Obie's posting mentions "hefty bandwidth"
requirements. Given that, I wouldn't encourage attendees to be on SL.

(2) Wouldn't a live video webcast plus a conference IRC channel give
much same experience with much lower bandwidth requirements? Plus it
would make it easier for attendees to interact (IRC has always been very
active during the RubyConfs in the past).

As I said, the SL idea *sounds* cool, but I'm not sure what the
advantages are.

-- Jim (willing to be educated) Weirich

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

11

"John Lam" <drjflam@gmail.com> writes:

So that works out to a cost of 4 * 10 * 3 days
or $120 to host 200 attendees in SL. I have no problem getting my
company (ObjectSharp) to kick in the funding for the space rental.

Thoughts?
-John

I can't believe people are paying money for virtual real estate. :wink:

···

--
Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> http://chneukirchen.org

12

For another look at how things happen in Second Life, check out this
movie of John Hockenberry of The Infinite Mind with Suzanne Vega
performing live in Second Life: http://www.blip.tv/file/57262

I spent some time walking around the offices of The Infinite Mind -
they're floating 602M above ground. A Second Life resident gave me a
lift up there on his jet plane / flying saucer thing.

I'm spending way too much time in here already ... :slight_smile:

-John
http://www.iunknown.com

13

John Lam wrote:

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'm still wondering what exactly the SL folks will be getting out of the
conference. I'm assuming there will be an audio feed. Will there be a
video feed as well? How about slides, will they be visable? What kind
of interaction will there be between attendees and the SL folk? Between
presenter and SL folk?

-- Jim "planning on attending the SL Ruby meeting next week" Weirich

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

14

There's actually already a SL rubyist community that meets every first and
third thursday of the month. I attended this past thursday, and it was
pretty cool. I even made a JRuby shirt for it.

Feel free to stop by, we're interested in having more folks attend, and
there's a nice big presentation screen and plenty of seating. There's even
an in-world IRB extension to play with Ruby while you're there.

···

On 8/8/06, James Britt <james.britt@gmail.com> wrote:

John Lam wrote:
> Thanks for the pointer to that info, Austin! I'm checking with the
> folks at Linden now on that limitation, and I'll get back to y'all
> once I get the goods.

This sounds quite interesting. I've been meaning to poke into SL, but
I'm concerned that it may become a massive time sink for me.

Still, it offers lots of opportunity.

--
James Britt

"People want simple stories."

--
Contribute to RubySpec! @ Welcome to headius.com
Charles Oliver Nutter @ headius.blogspot.com
Ruby User @ ruby.mn
JRuby Developer @ www.jruby.org
Application Architect @ www.ventera.com

15

Doh! That's much more straightforward :slight_smile:

Charles, can you broker this with the Rubyists of Second Life folks?

Also, can someone try and ping David Black to see if he's cool with
all this? I've tried to reach him via one of his many email addresses
but haven't gotten a response yet ...

Thanks!
-John

···

On 8/9/06, Charles O Nutter <headius@headius.com> wrote:

Well, wouldn't it just be better to ask the Rubyists of Second Life if we
can use their space? They have a 4-parcel island already available for Ruby
meetings and conferences with seating and facilities built and ready to go.

BTW, there's also pricin for nonprofits on parcels of land; I believe the
folks hosting RoSL paid only about $150/parcel, far cheaper than the $1250
it normally costs.

16

Jim Weirich wrote:

As I said, the SL idea *sounds* cool, but I'm not sure what the advantages are.

?? Advantages? It's a COOL TOY!

Gosh Jim, what else is there?

:slight_smile:

-- Jim (willing to be educated) Weirich

James "Hey, what's *this* button do ... " Britt

17

Domain names?
  ;-)

···

On Aug 10, 2006, at 0:22, Christian Neukirchen wrote:

"John Lam" <drjflam@gmail.com> writes:

So that works out to a cost of 4 * 10 * 3 days
or $120 to host 200 attendees in SL. I have no problem getting my
company (ObjectSharp) to kick in the funding for the space rental.

Thoughts?
-John

I can't believe people are paying money for virtual real estate. :wink:

18

John Lam wrote:

For another look at how things happen in Second Life, check out this
movie of John Hockenberry of The Infinite Mind with Suzanne Vega
performing live in Second Life: http://www.blip.tv/file/57262

I spent some time walking around the offices of The Infinite Mind -
they're floating 602M above ground. A Second Life resident gave me a
lift up there on his jet plane / flying saucer thing.

I'm spending way too much time in here already ... :slight_smile:

Omigosh. Do you know what a huge Suzanne Vega fan I am?
Thank you for pointing me to that.

Hmm. Now I'll be spending time here, too. :slight_smile:

Hal

19

Jim Weirich wrote:

John Lam wrote:

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'm still wondering what exactly the SL folks will be getting out of the conference. I'm assuming there will be an audio feed. Will there be a video feed as well? How about slides, will they be visable? What kind of interaction will there be between attendees and the SL folk? Between presenter and SL folk?

-- Jim "planning on attending the SL Ruby meeting next week" Weirich

I'm wondering the same.

Also: When/where's the meeting? How do I find it?

Hal

20

Hi --

John Lam wrote:

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'm still wondering what exactly the SL folks will be getting out of the
conference. I'm assuming there will be an audio feed. Will there be a
video feed as well? How about slides, will they be visable? What kind
of interaction will there be between attendees and the SL folk? Between
presenter and SL folk?

I think we're just going to be recording the event, not streaming it.
(See my other post regarding not having extra sets of AV equipment in
the venue.) As for interaction between people who are there and
people who aren't: the whole thing is conceived and planned and
executed as an in-person event (a format we do not consider obsolete
:slight_smile: and we're really not looking for ways to make it transparently
available in real time to people who aren't there. I could imagine
planning a "virtual" gathering, and that it could be quite
interesting, but RubyConf isn't it.

David

···

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Jim Weirich wrote:

--
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
Ruby for Rails => book, Ruby for Rails
http://www.rubycentral.org => Ruby Central, Inc.