Following the seemingly specious rejection of the contributed prim-alignment tool earlier in the week, Qarl has declined to make the changes suggested by the Lab.

In the past, when code contributions have been made, the Lab has been willing to pull out all the stops to make its own contribution to the code in some cases, even going so far as to rewrite a contribution’s code from the ground up to meet its requirements or to overcome stylistic or technical objections.

The Lab has not chosen to do that this time and, while I cannot reasonably speculate on what the Lab is thinking and why – in this instance, the temptation is so very great.

But Qarl is right. He’s provided the code, and it is up to the Lab or someone else to push it across whatever line the Lab sets.

Certainly it has been mentioned repeatedly by Lab staff that many of its developers detest and resent the company-mandated open-source programme for the Second Life viewer, such that few of them choose to participate in it. Perhaps some balance has tilted internally with all of the staff turnover.

Qarl makes suggestions about the psychology of oversized avatars (research done by the magnificent Nick Yee and his team), and wonders at the ongoing effects of virtual godhood (about which John “Pathfinder” Lester has written so eloquently).

I am, as I mentioned, hesitant to ascribe specific motives to the Lab in this, or dig too deeply into its reasoning (perhaps another day), but something feels quite different about the way the Lab is treating this contribution to the way it has treated many others.

Share this: Twitter

Google

Facebook

Reddit

Tumblr

More

LinkedIn

Pocket



Pinterest

Print





Tags: John Lester, Karl Stiefvater / Qarl Linden / Qarl Fizz, Linden Lab / Linden Research Inc, Nick Yee, Opinion, Prims, Second Life, Source code, Virtual Environments and Virtual Worlds