Category: News-Opinion

Starting over, or papering over?

Posted on by Inara Pey

Philip Rosedale today makes his first “official” blog post as the “returning” interim CEO (I use quotes around “returning” because face it – he never really left) – and it makes interesting reading.

The positive is that we once again seem to be moving to an era where Linden Lab is at least communicating to its user base. While Mark Kingdon cannot in any way be blamed for all of the woes that have struck Second Life since 2008 (for reasons I’ve mentioned before), it cannot be denied that one major failing within the Lab under his leadership was in the matter of open communication. Direct engagement with users whether in-world or via the blogs was a rarity. Kingdon himself didn’t really directly interact, talk to and listen to users in depth until February of this year – and then only once, albeit with a broadly positive interaction. While in the blogs, Lindens would occasionally appear, blog, and comment – but they turned cherry picking posts to which they’d respond into something worthy of the best politicians – if not an art form in its own right.

Now we have what amounts to – one the surface at least – some soul-searching from Philip, starting with his SL7B address and moving on to this blog entry which includes the welcome announcement of the possible return of Town Hall meetings – the (hopefully) first of which is to be held before the end of July.

Now, whether the old Town Hall meetings actually achieved anything or not can be debated; some will say almost certainly that they did, others will say that on the whole they were little more than PR and that the issues and directions for the future had already been determined within the Lab, and so feedback from such meetings would have little overall impact on matters.

While I’ll be returning to the first part of this view in a wider context in a moment, I have to say that  – in terms of the Town Hall meetings themselves – the fact that LL may not themselves taken much away from them that altered perceptions or thinking was entirely beside the point.

What the Town Halls did – and did well – was give those attending a sense of involvement with the Lab and with the future of SL as a whole. People felt engaged and motivated. While this may not have vastly altered the plans and ideas presented at such meetings (and I don’t necessarily subscribe to the viewpoint that the impact was minimal), the fact that people came away from them feeling engaged and having had the opportunity to say their piece doubtless contributed to the overall “good vibes” they had about SL.

However – and there is always an “however” – note that I did use the term “communication to” rather than “communicating with” users. The distinction here is important. Again, many of those who place blame for their woes squarely on the shoulders of Mark Kingdon should take heed: prioritised targets in Philip’s new strategy are – wait for it – the New User Experience (TM) and Viewer 2.1.

Yes, folks – Mark Kingdon may have gone, but his so-called “big mistakes” will roll forward regardless of anything you may say, think, feel or emote. The strategy around these was set a long time ago, and not by Mark Kingdon – but by Philip and the rest of the Board. While we may see some tinkering here and there and the odd shift in emphasis, rest assured neither is going to go away and nor is the Lab going to be swayed very far from the course it has set for itself.

And why should they, with regards to either of these things? Considerable time, effort and money have been invested in both. Frankly, LL would do itself far more damage by abandoning either than in sticking to their guns and trying to get both to work. and while they may have struck their collective thumb with a very heavy hammer in pushing Viewer 2 to far to fast – the fact that Philip has acknowledged this and is committing to rectifying matters is positive.

So, like it or lump it, Viewer 2 is here to stay. Now the important thing is to make sure that whatever voice we have is used to ensure genuine issues and concerns – Search and the rest – are heard clearly by Philip and LL and put towards the promised improvements.

Beyond this, Philip also identifies grid concerns as a major area of focus. While welcome news, this is not actually anything new. Frank Ambrose (F Linden) and the team have been hard at work on this issue throughout 2009/10 – and it has to be said that overall, the results have been significant. Yes there are still issues relating to smooth sim boundary crossings, some people still experience issues around Tping due to Mono attachments and the like – but on the whole, the grid is subject to far fewer outages, downtime and other glitches than ever before, and most of us – when push comes to shove – are enjoying a much better overall experience.

That said, there are still core issues that need looking at – even if they are much harder to address – as the recent series of server roll-outs / roll-backs from 1.36 through to 1.40.2 have more than demonstrated. And this is what I would hope Philip is referring to in identifying stability and performance as major points in the “new” strategy (simply because ensuring the grid is stable shouldn’t so much be a part of “new” strategies as it should be a part of “standard operating procedures”). It be sure, ensuring that every new release isn’t going to have some adverse effect on the main grid is a difficult thing to achieve: the beta grid is, after all, much smaller than the main grid and doubtless less impacted by things such as massive script usage, all-out combat scenarios, etc., – so missing potentially damaging flaws in new releases is a complex issue. But LL do have a habit of bundling comprehensive bug fixes together with new releases, so one cannot help but wonder if it would not be better to take a more cautious approach – as Philip seems to indicate, and reserve bug fix releases simply for that purpose and keep “big” features (such as Havoc 7) reserved for their own dedicated release – and then focusing interim releases primarily on fixing problems the new release has created incrementally.

The other major comment Philip makes is around the issue of XStreet / the SL Marketplace. This is interesting because the latter has come under much fire – and it has to be said that Grant Linden has been making a stupendous effort to engage with those with a huge spread of issues (many genuine, some perceived, a few down to simple confusion) and ensure that the appropriate feedback is given. Taken together with his actions, Philip’s comment should do much to reassure all of us that – again while LL are not going to abandon SLM as some of the wilder demands are insisting – the Lab is going to make every effort to ensure the new Marketplace is up to meeting its intended use and will be seen to be an overall improvement on XSL.

Taken as a whole, the blog post is broadly positive and encouraging. It indicates that while LL may not be moving away from its chosen path to any significant degree, some inside the organisation are willing to hold up a hand and state mea culpa and admit that the company needs to rescale its plans to a size that matches its actual capabilities and that whether they like it or not, at some point they are going to have to start, at least in some measure, back to engaging with the “pesky kids” (i.e. you and me) who run around their grid creating mischief.

I’ll be looking towards Philip’s planned Town Hall (or whatever he is going to now call it) in the expectation that what we’re seeing here is something of a genuine “back to basics” rather than another attempt to paper over the cracks which have now reached a size where even those in the lofty heights at LL can no longer ignore.

More on the Marketplace

Posted on by Inara Pey

The discussion thread relating to the new Marketplace is growing apace. What is most refreshing is the fact that (until the weekend arrived) Grant Linden was staying fully engaged with those posting comments – and addressing the good and the bad, rather than going about the usual cherry-picking we’ve tended to see in Linden responses.

While at times he seems to be little more than a gofer – charging back and forth between the thread and the “Marketplace team” to get answers – his contribution shouldn’t be diminished. XStreet, for all its faults has been a major means for merchants to gain revenue, and given the manner in which other aspects – most notably in-world search – are currently borked up, it is essential merchants aren’t panicked by either a rushed implementation of the Marketplace or a feeling that the Lab is responding (with apologies to Dr. Frasier Crane) “We’re not listening…”

I gave initial feedback from fiddling with the Marketplace the other day. Admittedly, I’m not “big-time” merchant my listing (or store) doesn’t top 50 items, and I don’t consider myself in any way shape or size an “entrepreneur”. I build because it is fun, I sell to off-set tier. Ergo, I’m not as deeply into the mechanics of XSL as other may be, and so I missed the fact that features critical to some businesses aren’t so much missing in the Beta, as potentially ignored as not being vital at this time.

This has caused a lot of angst among merchants. It’s also (as with Search and Viewer 2) brought the WannabeA Linden mob out in force. Some of the angst from the former is expressed in unnecessary dramatic expressions of disgust (some of which are vented without actually indicating precisely why the new system is a “pile of crap” which don’t actually help drive the discussion forward in any way). Meanwhile, at the opposite end of the scale we have people sanctimoniously posting as to why merchants shouldn’t be upset as this is, after all a “beta”, before launching into a pious sermon on what “beta” means and how people lack the common sense to appreciate it as such.

Shame on both sides.

Between the two, however lies a wealth of concerns that are valid – some of which are also very worrying, despite Grant’s best efforts to calm matters. An examples of this is distributed payments. Many items on Xstreet (and indeed in-world) are made by more than one individual (or more than one avatar). As such, both Xstreet and most in-world vending systems provide a means for the payment received for a sold item to be distributed to the various individuals/avatars concerned in its creation. Yet this functionality appears to have been treated as a “nice to have” rather than a “must be in place” feature by those responsible for creating SLM, with Grant only able to confirm it will be added “in the future”.

Similarly, how listings on SLM are synched with their corresponding XStreet listings has been a source of concern inasmuch as all information on SLM is currently drawn from “prepared” listings on XSL – only even when merchants have followed the rule and prepared their XSL listings, what is arriving in SLM needs a lot of additional work to make it both attractive and usable (as I can personally attest). Yet it remained wholly unclear for several days at to whether a re-synch of data between XSL and SLM would overwrite the latter – thus undoing the Merchant’s hard work in “fixing” things on SLM (which now appears to be the case), while it remains (at the time of writing) unclear as to whether the synching will also “undo” the new features unique to SLM that merchants can now employ in their listings. As the synching is an “all or nothing” approach (you either have it turned on, and everything is re-synched, whether it is a new item just added to XStreet or items you’ve slaved over so they “look right” on SLM; or you simply don’t get anything updated), it tends to undermine people’s preparedness to test things.

Both of these two issues are pretty fundamental and demonstrate something of a lack of forethought on the part of those behind the SLM roll-out – particularly given that while this “Beta” is supposedly for the benefit of Merchants, LL are nevertheless trying to get merchants to push customer traffic into the new Marketplace in order to “test” the customer side of things. While such testing is clearly needed, it runs the risk of damaging the reputation of at least some merchants for a raft of reasons.

Given the list of current issues within SLM: language defaults, inconsistency of image displays, synching concerns, confusion (and lack of information) on tags and tagging, large gaps in required functionality (i.e. the aforementioned distribution of payments), and so on, it is very clear that SLM has a very long way to go before it is ready to replace XSL. As such it is good to read Grant’s repeated assurances that SLM will not be rushed to prime time.

Nevertheless, given the SLM was the subject of extended discussions with some merchants (via the roundtable, etc.), and even some of those posting in the forum thread give the impression (which granted might be little more than hot air) that they were privy to the inside track on matters, the volume of issues with SLM is surprising. At the end of the day, this is not a new product.

The basics were there in XSL – yet they somehow appear to have been ignored in the drive to make the Marketplace “web standard”. And while it is all very nice for Grant to paint a picture whereby SLM will allow merchant’s products to be openly googled from the web, I’m not altogether convinced this is a necessary benefit or even close to a vital requirement. Not when the majority of shoppers for Second Life related items are going to be one of two places: either in-world or on SLM. So is Google-oriented visibility really that much of a vital driving force? It’s a nice-to-have, for sure for merchants – but I hardly think it is going to encourage the heaving masses to rush to Second Life any more than closer links to Facebook will bring hordes of new users screaming to the gates of Second Life.

But, all that said, it’s good to see that, following Philip’s address at SL7B, the Lab appear to be taking the time to listen to issues and address them. They need to keep this up – not just within SLM, but across the board. And the next time they fire-up an initiative that is liable to impact the lives of a sizeable portion of their user community, one hopes they’ll put their new listening skills to good use up front.

To market, to market…

Posted on by Inara Pey

The public beta of the Second Life Marketplace appears to be up and running. I had some concerns when the beta was confusingly announced. Are they valid? Here’s a brief tour and initial reactions. More will likely come when I’ve had a chance to digest more, unless others get there first.

  • It is SL website bland, with the theme introduced with the “new look” website out in force. It’s not actually bad – just bland
  • Pretty straightforward for the shopper:
    • The search bar is at the top of the page (once you have logged in), and is hard to miss (there is an “include mature content” check box beneath it, which I assume will need to be enabled on a log-in by log-in basis)
    • Shoppers can also take pot luck and click on the large “category” picture that updates periodically (so you can get a direct listing of clothing, furnishings, etc., according to the image displayed) – which I assume links to paid item listings, although I’ve not investigated this
    • Or there is the Featured Items listing that scrolls along beneath the larger “category” picture
  • A My Marketplace option at the top of the page provides access to an individuals account and – most importantly for creators, access to one’s “store” (what were “listings” in XSL).

As I sell through XSL, this store option was of primary interest for me. Clicking on it took me to a rather long-winded ToS page I that must be accepted before one can access one’s store the first time. Some terms here may well cause ripples among those taking the time to read them, such as clause 5.4, vis: License. When you submit Content, you remain the original copyright holder. However in doing so you also grant
Linden Lab a non-exclusive, world-wide, royalty-free, sublicensable right to exercise the copyright, publicity, and database rights  you have in the Content. These rights allow us to promote, sell, and distribute your Content. While this is intended to indicate that merchants are giving permission to linden Lab to actually host their goods in order to be sold, the License does imply a lot more than that, particularly given the inclusion of the words worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable right to…., which given the angst around things like the TPVP and new SL general ToS may well cause gnashing of teeth as people take it to mean LL are claiming the right to sell what they like where they like (when in fact I would humbly suggest that the wording is intended to cover them should they opt to hive-off the Marketplace to one or more third parties to run on their behalf at some point).

There are other niggles within the ToS, which is the usual one-sided affair one tends to otherwise expect. However, I’m not going to get bogged down in minutiae here.

Once past the ToS page, one is confronted by something of a blank page, with a menu bar towards the top (beneath the banner) and a series of additional links down the left side of the page that mimic the top menu bar headings and include sublinks to the categories within each menu heading. Between them, these comprise:

  • Inventory: add new items to your store; manage the items in your store, perform bulk uploads, manage something called “coupons” (coming soon!) and generate reports
  • Orders: cancel a sale, redeliver an item and view transaction history – all of which intermittently and inconsistently kept flashing a “Coming soon!” pop-up at me when the Mouse hovered over them
  • Reports: also appears to be “Coming soon!”
  • Store Set-up: with Manage Assistants (“Coming soon!” ), Edit Store Information, Vacation Mode (Coming…you guessed it…), and View My Store
  • Help Resources: with links to the Merchant’s wiki, etc.

Looking a little more closely at some of these:

Edit Store Information allows you to enter limited info about yourself and your store. The boxes are free text, so it’s up to you what you use them for (within ToS guidelines). There are also boxes for you to include a link to a website and to an in-world store SURL.

View My Store displays your listed goods in an XSL-style format (images, name, price), with some degree of configuration in terms of the number of items displayed on a page. & limited sort options. Bland to look at, but actually smarter than XSL’s View My Listings format. As with XSL, clicking on an item takes you to its sale page, which includes an OnRez-style Revise Your Item button at the top right.

Item for Sale page - Merchant's View

Manage Inventory takes you to a clean (i.e. no images), paginated list of your goods, giving the name, number available, price, and options to Preview, Unlist and Edit. From here, Preview takes you to a Preview of a listing, similar to the image above, while Edit, rather unsurprisingly takes you to an editing screen where you can amend items….

The Edit page itself is vastly cleaned-up and easier to use than the old XSL – but is not without niggles. It would be nice, for example, that if a store SURL is entered in the Store Information page, it is by default carried over to all listings associated with the merchant. After all, the majority of people, I would guess, will have a URL to their flagship store – and having to re-enter the SURL over and over again seems to make a mockery of including it in the Info page (which is likely to be little-read. Of course, there will be some who’d like to send people to their different stores in-world – but by including a default, LL would save the majority additional copy/paste work.

I’d also like to see any website URL from the Store Info page carried over to individual listings, particularly as we’re limited to 2,000 character descriptions, so it would be nice to point to a web page where more info can be given.

A nice touch with the edit screen and the item display page is the inclusion of a FEATURES list, which appears on the finished listing as a tabbed item. This allows you to list specific features of the product for easy reference. Just a shame it is limited to 5 features, which really isn’t enough in this time of feature-rich products.

There are niggles, however: permissions set in XSL don’t appear to be carried over  – all my listings came out as being set NO COPY, NO MOD, NO TRANSFER – so I had no option but to edit every single item and reset the permissions. Also, the price of feature listings are now recorded on a page of their own, rather than in the listing options themselves. This means one is has to inconveniently open up a separate page and check the prices rather than simply reviewing and selecting when creating a new listing.

I’m sure others will find more and have deeper views on the merchant side of things, but this is enough for now.

On the customer side of things, Search still seems as hit-and-miss as ever….but again, if my listings are anything to go by, people will have a lot of tweaking still to do, so sharper keyword usage may help.

The new shopping cart is liable to cause some angst. No more quick visits to XSL, find your item and click to purchase. Now you have to follow the “web standard” of dropping things into your cart and then going to the checkout…

The shopping cart

This arrangement does have its advantages – especially when buying multiple items – but how many of us do? Be prepared for grumbles. Certainly, having more flexible payment options is a good step forward – but those paying in “real” currency, beware the hidden charges!

Overall, it’s not a bed attempt. Again, I really cannot see why they couldn’t allow so text formatting in the shape of BB code or even HTML formatting  – or why animate gifs have been banned. Neither would do a lot to damage the new layout; indeed, one could argue they’d actually brighten what is otherwise a terribly flat, bland affair when browsing.

There is a lot still to be done, given this is only “Beta” – and I hope LL have learned their lesson with Viewer 2 and won’t suddenly start ramming SLM at all and sundry. Certain things do need fixing & explaining, such as the “find your fav stores inworld” link….which currently takes you to the SL sign-up page *Ahem*. There are also rather a lot of “coming soon” items – some of which I would have thought would be “here already”, given they are needed by merchants (transaction histories, as an example); but providing they come along before SLM is declared “fit for action”, they shouldn’t be too much of an issue.

ADDENDUM

Since starting this piece, I got sidetracked into fixing my own listings….as such I missed the emerging thread on the Beta, wherein several major issues I’d overlooked have been raised.

No more LagNmoor

Posted on by Inara Pey

Maxwell Graf is one of the most talented content creators in SL; not only that, he is a true gentleman. He is also someone I regard as a friend.

Maxwell Graf's amazing store

Anyone who has visited his sims, Rustica and LagNmoor, cannot fail to have been visually stunned by his creations: houses, furnishing, sculpties, – all have been crafted with an amazing eye for detail and a beautiful brush of style. His store at Rustica is simply a work of art.

So in some respects it is unsurprising that Max is the victim of content ripping; anyone making their way towards even moderate success is liable to be targeted – which really isn’t much of a recommendation for Second Life.

But in other respects, that anyone would try to nab Max’s work is surprising – simply because it is so utterly unique and instantly identifiable.

So it came as a bit of a shock to read this report from Max. It speaks pretty much for itself.

This is not the first time that someone has reported their content continuing to be sold after it has supposedly been taken down. However, as it seemed LL were getting their act together at the end of last year, one would have hoped that diligence would be maintained, and physical checks put in to monitor against the “return” of goods after an initial removal.

Max points to the recent layoffs as being potentially a reason for LL being unable to suitably police matters – but to be honest, this is Max being his usual generous self. Now, it could be that there has simply been a slip-up within LL, and items have been missed. However, their reply to Max’s further plea isn’t entirely helpful. All he can do is e-mail the Removals Team until they see fit to reply.

As a result, Max is shutting down his LagNmoor sim today.

Max lists the offending sims and those responsible in his blog. I urge anyone reading this piece to show support for Max and his creations and boycott these sims and any products sold by the individuals concerned.

I’d also urge anyone interested to take the time to visit LagNmoor before it is gone  – and wander through Rustica as well. Both sims are a visual feast.

See and hear Max on You Tube in a video tour of Rustica.

Did he jump, was he pushed or was someone up to no good?

Posted on by Inara Pey

Mark Kingdon is gone. Philip Rosedale is “back” (although as Chairman of the Board, he never really left).

While I still hold the opinion that those expecting PS to now Messianic-ally resurrect  Second Life from its perceived “death” are in for not a little disappointment, I’m also really curious as to what really went on this week. And while the truth may never be known, I can’t help but indulge in a little idle speculation.

First off – was Mark Kingdon going to leave LL? Yes, I tend to believe he was. It is not uncommon for the head honcho to go when a company divests itself of a goodly portion of its workforce, and if Hamlet and others are right about the depth of disaffection within the Board following the apparent “failure” of Viewer 2, then it seems hardly likely that Kingdon would escape the fray. After all, he was pretty much brought in to drive the company the direction it has taken over the last few years – and which or not the likes of Kapor shame the blame for this direction in the first place – the fact remains that Kingdon is (or rather was) the most expendable.

Indeed,this might be one of the very reasons PR himself may have supported the contracting-in of a new CEO; while he may / may not have been a standard-bearer for the push towards bigger revenues faster, I suspect he was canny enough to surmise what might happen were the push to fail with him occupying the hot seat. Again, witness the clever wording of PR’s blog post: “Returning to the lab…”  – suggestive that he’s been away all this time and that he is “innocent” of all that has transpired…

But this aside, assuming that MK’s days were numbered  – whether because he was being set-up as the fall guy or because (and let’s not dismiss this) he was holding up a hand and saying, “mea maxima culpa” or whether a natural end of his tenure had been reached (“OK guys, I’ll take this on for two years, but after that, I’d like the freedom to move on if I’m not 100% happy…”) – one cannot deny the sheer timing of what has occurred to be a little – well, curious.

SL7B is supposed to be a time of celebration, of Lindens and residents together marking another year in SL’s life and growth. Coming on top of all the recent upsets and uncertainty – especially in the wake of the layoffs, with people far and wide speculating on the financial stability of LL, worries over what the layoffs would mean for SL (up to and including people pointing to a complete sell-off of the business) – one would have expected this week to be something of a show of solidarity within LL and towards Second Life as a whole, if only to give weight to PR’s assurance that we’re safe, the world is safe.

But no; instead we have a gathering at which MK is due to speak, at which PR himself is present, and suddenly MK is “called away” on an “emergency”, and shortly thereafter Hamlet issues his “breaking news” story.

Now, I could be reading this all wrong, but it does suggest to me that LL again got caught hopping around with underwear around collective ankles.

Did someone accidentally let slip what was going to happen in, say a week or two’s time? Or could it be that someone recently released from SL and who had been privy to plans decided to crank up the rumour-mill in the hope of wrong-footing the Lab into making changes far earlier than expected – and succeeded?

The whole change-over smacks a little of panic. *IF* MK was due to leave in time, the most obvious course of action would be to recruit a replacement. Then either once this had been done, or during the process itself, make a controlled announcement as to what is about to happen. Make clear the what and the why. That way you control the spin, and you limit potential damage.

Yet that hasn’t happened. Now it could be that more Machiavellian machinations were at work within LL, and MK opted to jump ship before the knife arrived somewhere between his shoulder blades. But again, this doesn’t seem credible.

For a start, such machinations would not reflect well on the members of the SL Board; MK may not have been around a long time, but he also probably knows where not a few skeletons are closeted, so a sudden Board-driven ousting could backfire badly. Which is not to say they don’t happen.

But there is another reason why I don’t think such a view is credible. And it is simply because it suggests that the Board are panicking. And a panicked Board isn’t good for the company’s image, not when, again, “stability” needs to be the watchword.

Similarly, MK himself isn’t going to want to unduly rock the boat himself. He has the rest of his career to consider, and is going to want to part company with LL on as good a set of terms as possible and with his resume unblemished.

No. I can’t see Machiavellian machinations or panic being the underpinning cause. CEO departures rarely just “happen”  – they are planned for. Even when one is falling on one’s sword as a result of poor corporate performance or for layoffs or for simply Getting It Wrong. It is an exercise in damage limitation to ensure the best face is put on things, that there is a “smooth transition”, etc., and that the business world retains its faith in your ability to do business – or the value of your business.

Which brings me back to a slipped word or an act of mischief.

We’ll probably never know the entire truth. There could well be a myriad of other reasons behind the extraordinary events of the last 24 hours. But that doesn’t mean we should speculate…just a little…

Marking time…

Posted on by Inara Pey

So Hamlet was right. Mark Kingdon is departing and Philip Rosedale will be back as CEO, at least on an interim basis.

Doubtless there will be much partying in the streets at the news, as Mark Kingdon has long been seen as the Big Bad Boogieman responsible for all of SL’s woes. Lord knows, I’ve questioned him enough over the last couple of years!

But what does this really signify?

The manner and direction in which Kingdon drove the company did not spring afresh from his head; nor did it exist in a vacuum. Yes, things seemed to teeter from crisis to crisis, yes some ghastly policy changes were enforced (OpenSpace / Homesteads) and others were royally messed up in their execution (Adult Changes) – and yes, Viewer 2 didn’t go down as well as expected.

But to hold Kingdon singularly responsible for these woes would be – in all honesty – wrong. He has to report to a Board, a Board that has in so many ways sought to influence and direct the future of Second Life. In this respect, Mitch Kapor (as I’m constantly pointing out) carries a portion of the blame. It was his SL5B speech which really set the tone for all that has transpired within Second Life over the last 24+ months. And if we look at the history of SL and LL as a whole, it has been racked by periods of turmoil, poor decision-making and what have you – as much under Rosedale’s leadership as Kingdon’s.

And leave us not forget that Philip Rosedale himself is a member of the Board – although one could argue that he was perhaps cajoled into towing the party line, rather than being a standard-bearer. While it is undoubtedly true that Rosedale’s SL7B presentation struck a much-needed note of contrition and suggests that there will be much in the way of navel-gazing and fluff weeding going on at LL – the hard truth is that much of the overall mindset that has been in play for the last two years will still be in play once the desks have been shuffled and the names on the pods changed.

I do find it amusing that the achievements that Kingdon has presided over during his tenure  – and they do exist – such as the investment in the underpinning network infrastructure, the investment in new hardware, the massively improved overall stability of the platform, the efforts to finally improve the asset database servers, etc., are being so erstwhile dismissed within the forum as “not being due to Kingdon” because the likes of Frank Ambrose ran point on the efforts.

Yet the very people who refuse to acknowledge Kingdon’s overall leadership in these achievements are quick to blame all the woes SL has suffered directly on his shoulders – when one could argue that just has he is “undeserving” of credit for the former achievements as he didn’t “lead” them, so to is he undeserving of the blame for any “failures” for much the same reason: Adult Changes were led” by Jack and Cyn Linden, for example; The OpenSpace fiasco was “led” by Jack as well…

While I don’t doubt that Philip Rosedale’s introspection at SL7B was genuine – at least to a point – I would still caution those busy putting on their Rose(dale) tinted glasses and loudly applauding Kingdon’s departure would do well to remember:

  • This is an interim move, pending the appointment of a new CEO
  • Philip’s introspection, in many ways, also isn’t new. He’s done so in the past – but the train has steamed on
  • as stated, Philip himself was at the helm during many of SL’s other crises: the tax revolt, et al – and he was technically still at the helm alongside Kingdon during the OpenSpace debacle.

As such, while I personally do – in all honesty – view the change over with some optimism – I’m not going out and joining the others in looking for M Linden’s “grave” so I can dance a little jig.

Philip has a potentially tough time ahead of him. While he may well come the closest of the Linden Board and management team to grokking SL’s user base, he’s going to have a hard time finding a balance between pleasing those same users and demonstrating to his fellow Board members that – despite all that has “gone wrong”  – Second Life is still capable of “making money” and has a broader appeal than currently appears to be the case despite the “failure” of Viewer 2.

That said, I will say this: Welcome back to a direct, hands-on role Philip – and thank you for stepping into the breach. We know times are hard, but you’ve also delivered what will be taken by many as a set of promises within your SL7B presentation. Further, others have (for the time being) opted to take a selective memory approach to LL’s history and management of SL over the years. So it might be said that you have a window of opportunity to “make good” on both the perceived promises and what people consider to be “wrong” with Second Life as a whole.

Use it wisely, because as you know, and Mark Kingdon likely rues, we SL users are a fickle crowd, and we’ll turn and bite the hand that feeds us as readily as we’ll roll over and let it tickle our collective belly.