An Open Cloud Requires an Equally Open Manifesto

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Brandon Watson

unread,
Mar 25, 2009, 9:42:44 PM3/25/09
to cloud-computing
 
Disclaimer - I work for Microsoft, and in fact work for the blog writer.
 
I will have my own, personal, response up some time tomorrow, but I wanted to see what the discussion in this group would look like, so I'm posting this here, because this is one of the best discussion groups for cloud.  You can follow along at twitter - http://www.twitter.com/azure
 
-Brandon

Brandon Watson

unread,
Mar 26, 2009, 5:25:11 PM3/26/09
to Cloud Computing
Adding a link to a personal blog posting on the topic of open cloud
manifestos.

http://www.manyniches.com/cloudcomputing/an-open-cloud-requires-an-equally-open-manifesto/

I'm surprised there isn't more talk about this. Plenty of press pick
up:

http://www.techflash.com/Microsoft_criticizes_closed_drafting_of_cloud_computing_manifesto_41869577.html

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Cloud-Computing/Microsoft-Calls-for-Open-Cloud-Standards-538212/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/26/microsoft_cloud_manifesto_complaints/

And even a start at a wiki-style manifesto:

http://wiki.cloudcommunity.org/wiki/Cloud_Computing_Manifesto

Thoughts?

Disclaimer - I work for Microsoft and I approve of this message.

-Brandon Watson

On Mar 25, 6:42 pm, Brandon Watson <blwat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://blogs.msdn.com/stevemar/archive/2009/03/26/moving-toward-an-op...

Jesse L Silver

unread,
Mar 26, 2009, 5:40:29 PM3/26/09
to cloud-c...@googlegroups.com
Today's events are disturbing in that Martin appears to be trying to lambaste the companies and organizations that truly ARE working toward openness in the cloud and thereby derail any efforts already in motion. If they actually wanted to see open cloud principals set forth, they would have made a greater effort to join the Open Cloud Manifesto.

Alexis Richardson

unread,
Mar 26, 2009, 5:46:52 PM3/26/09
to cloud-c...@googlegroups.com
Martin is asking for an open process.

Brandon Watson

unread,
Mar 26, 2009, 6:05:00 PM3/26/09
to cloud-c...@googlegroups.com
Yes, Steven was asking for an open process, and in his post mentions that the group sponsoring the manifesto came with a doc in hand, wihtout ability for MSFT to offer suggestions.  It appears that it was a sign as is sort of deal.

Jesse L Silver

unread,
Mar 26, 2009, 6:07:52 PM3/26/09
to cloud-c...@googlegroups.com
And so am I - many of us are not happy with the process as it's unfolded. But we still all have the same goals, so we should work through this and strengthen the community, instead of taking the bait and beginning to infight.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis.r...@gmail.com> wrote:

Randall Minter

unread,
Mar 26, 2009, 6:38:37 PM3/26/09
to cloud-c...@googlegroups.com
It sounds quite contradictory to sneak around and get big signatures on a finalized document you are promoting as an "open" cloud manifesto. If that's the story, it's highly suspect from the get go. Of course, we haven't seen the document and we only know Microsoft's side of the story.

But if what they say is true, it looks from the outside like the individuals or companies putting on this show are running scared trying to solicit big support to retain power. It's exactly the kind of thing we don't need in our industry. It's the kind of thing that has brought down the world economy.

It's exceptionally shady at best.

- Randall

CTO & Founder
Qrimp, Inc.

http://www.qrimp.com

Adwait Ullal

unread,
Mar 26, 2009, 7:05:08 PM3/26/09
to cloud-c...@googlegroups.com
 

Ray Nugent

unread,
Mar 26, 2009, 9:43:49 PM3/26/09
to cloud-c...@googlegroups.com
Regardless of what one thinks about the process or the person behind it, you have to admit it takes some serious cahunas for one guy to put that kind of hurt on M$FT. Very interesting to watch this unfold...

Ray


From: Randall Minter <ran...@qrimp.com>
To: cloud-c...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:38:37 PM
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages