On the Open Cloud Manifest, Private Cloud Cabal and CCIF-NG

[Sam Johnston]

I've mentioned on various occasions that the infamous Open Cloud Manifesto is just the tip of the iceberg but until now I haven't had a smoking gun (at least none that weren't shared with me secretly under modus operandi for this "shadowy cabal"). Now I do and (at the time of writing) it's posted at http://www.cloudalliance.org/. Obviously there's more in the pipeline than we've seen thus far and the next phase will be fed to us this week, probably on Thursday at the CCIF Wall Street event (after revealing the remaining shreds of the manifesto on Monday... assuming that goes ahead).

The process appears to go something like this:

• Hijack IBM's drive into the cloud computing space under the auspice of "Open Cloud", claiming credit as co-author, instigator, etc. and allowing (if not encouraging) press to report same.
• Deliver a "Private Cloud Manifesto" that focuses on the "private cloud" fringe theory and alienates all of the existing "real" cloud computing providers including Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Salesforce (you're a private cloud vendor yourself remember).
  
• Announce the offending document at the Cloud Computing Expo in NY on Monday morning anyway.
• Accuse dissenters of not being "open" in the same way that Internet censorship opponents are branded child pornographers and privacy advocates supporters of terrorism.
  
• Use the momentum to announce a Cloud Computing Alliance which you will own and operate, also developed in secret and inviting only the usual suspects (or an Open Cloud Alliance - I'm not sure which it is yet, though a contact at Salesforce who should know wasn't aware of any involvement).
  
• ???
• Profit!
  

To be candid, I think Reuven Cohen has done his run as self-appointed dictator and his attempts to pwn the community have constituted an epic fail; in comparison to the wildly successful CloudCamp franchise the CCIF itself has turned into a laughing stock (which is why the two should not be combined under one umbrella as is/was to be proposed). That's my personal opinion and while others may share it, many will not. It's not set in stone and is subject to change depending how this situation is handled from here - it wouldn't have got to this point had they have "gone open" on Thursday when called to by me, Microsoft and others.

What matters now is getting out of this rut, putting away the swinging handbags (I know it's a weekend so our work hats are off but still...), and most importantly, working out how to minimise fallout in what is shaping up to be an ugly week for cloud computing. Whatever happens in New York will be under close scrutiny and unfortunately has the potential to tar the entire community with the same brush.

Here's what I propose:

• Someone not too close to the situation and without any (perceivable) conflicts/biases chair a working group to define what "ccif-ng" might look like - even a thread on the cloudforum list would probably suffice. In addition to Reuven/Jesse and their A-list (you know who you are) that rules me out given my [at times too] sharp criticism of the CCIF - even if I have only pure intentions.
• A new group would likely need new leadership (or no leadership). I'm happy to contribute but it won't be as leader and it may be better there were none anyway.
  
• Everything about the group from its inception be defined in public, allowing contribution from any party regardless of who they know, who they are and how big a membership fee they can stomach ($12,000 a vote for DMTF for example).
• Avoid the many problems associated with voting by adopting a consensus based approach which relies on the strength of the arguments rather than the size of the posse (something of a meritocracy). Cloud computing is about the end users remember, not the people who deliver them service.
  
• Consider taking over, ratifying and subscribing to [something like] the Open Cloud Principles I drafted yesterday (as well as the entire Cloud Computing Community wiki and cloudcommunity.org domain for that matter).
• Operate an open community, publicly removing only those who cause problems (spammers, trolls, etc.), in the cloudforum group or somewhere else TBD.
• Take heed of calls (including my own) to follow an IETF-style process (perhaps involving the IETF themselves for applicable standards).
  
• Limit sponsorship (if any) to that which is absolutely required for the functioning of the organisation - for example "eating our own dogfood" by having a provider like Mosso volunteer to host the community/wiki (which is a work in progress). Even then "sponsorship" and "bias" are often intrinsically linked and I know of a number of initiatives here which have already been adffected by the whims of behind-the-scenes "investors".
• Get on with evangelising cloud computing and related efforts such as relevant standards groups (without trying to boil the ocean ourselves), building and blessing definitions and models, creating whitepapers, preparing presentations, devising business cases, promoting the cause and generally raising awareness.
  

I'm quite sure this can been achieved in conjunction with the existing team - despite comments above Reuven is clearly a great evangelist and networker and Jesse is doing a lot of great work behind the scenes. I know they are both busy reviewing their strategy in light of all that has happened in the past days and I sincerely hope what results turns out to be largely compatible with this proposal.

In the mean time I encourage everyone to focus on what the future holds rather than what was done in the past - whether they meant well and were misunderstood or didn't and were caught out doesn't matter provided we work out how to move forward.

Enjoy your Sunday - I'm off to find a nice thermal spa in Germany having absorbed enough existing specifications for a lifetime this week.

Cheers,

Sam

[JP Morgenthal]

Sam,

I've read your posting multiple times to see if I could discern
this, but I do not see how Reuven is linked to the cloudalliance.org
website. I'm not saying that this is not the case, but I believe we
need to understand how you are making this connection if we are to
accept your premise that after all that's occurred there's still more
behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing going on that is vendor-led and
that this group has not had an opportunity to participate in.

JP
-----------------------------------------------
JP Morgenthal
cell : 703-554-5301
email: jpmorg...@gmail.com
email: m...@jpmorgenthal.com
twitter: www.twitter.com/jpmorgenthal
blog: www.jpmorgenthal.com/morgenthal

[Matthew Zito]

Rueven is the registrant, if you look at the whois info.

I'm not saying that there's anything nefarious going on, but that
website is ruv's.

Matt



On Mar 29, 2009, at 8:56 AM, "JP Morgenthal" <jpmorg...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[JP Morgenthal]

Matt,

My point to Sam was he did such a great job embedding links to
important information, but he had left out one of the critical pieces
of information that is implicit, but for some needed to be explicit.

http://www.whois.net/whois/cloudalliance.org

Although, I agree with Matt, this is hardly a nefarious point,
especially given the following:

Created On:21-Dec-2007 18:17:36 UTC

Do we accept that Reuven is now Nostradamus? I believe it
illustrates an early attempt to create what would become CCIF.

JP

[Sam Johnston]

JP,

I've added the link to the whois and earlier the following update:

"Update: Jesse Silver aka silverguru has posted about "an olive branch to the CCIF community" that will be offered tomorrow. He confirmed plans for an alliance separate from CCIF but said that the site was out of date and would be taken down pending more information. He also denied any connection with opencloudalliance.com and related domains and on further inspection these are registered to Mark Trang (Salesforce's Director, ISV Marketing and Programs) at home using a personal email and may not be related to any official Salesforce.com initiative. Both domains were discovered with a domain search and could well be coincidental."

The branding of the proposed "alliance" is identical to that recently introduced for the CCIF website (http://www.cloudforum.org/), and as Matt pointed out, Reuven personally owns the domain - this has evidently been in the works for longer than even I had anticipated.

I also neglected to draw attention to Reuven's August "Cloud Computing Alliance" post about how we might "financially organize ourselves for the development of a Cloud Computing", and some pertinent feedback:

Also the boards composition should include large business consumers of cloud computing and not simply technology vendors. I'd advise carefully avoiding a technology consortium pushing the interests of vendors and not the consumers of cloud computing.

There's also comments in more recent posts right up to "Introducing the Open Cloud Manifesto":

This is just one of several initiatives and announcements we will be making in the coming weeks as we move to organize the Cloud Computing Interoperability Forum (CCIF) and Cloud Camp into a formalized organization.

I've just spent an hour or two on the phone with Jesse trying to find some middle ground ahead of what promises to be another turbulent week for cloud computing. In particular I was looking for a way that Reuven & Jesse might be able to attend officially on behalf of the CCIF rather than as individuals (for example by throwing the CCIF's objectives open to discussion per below). As it stands it seems clear everyone (CCIF members, outsiders, the press, and those they are meeting) views them as official representatives, yet we don't know their position and I'm not sure how they could know ours without having asked.

Expecting to see some clarity on this in the coming hours, but in the mean time going to try salvage what's left of the weekend.

Sam

[adhi]

Hi !

I have suspicion that they ( Jesse + Reuven) are ( and were ) fully
aware of MS stand and will try to have a " Novell " kind of deal
with MS.
And we all know what was open source community's reaction.
They claim with impunity that they represent CCIF !
There is no one single post asking for opinion or ratification in the
community.
All announcements and declarations only !

Cheers

Varadarajan

On Mar 29, 9:47 am, Sam Johnston <s...@samj.net> wrote:
> JP,
>
> I've added the link to the whois and earlier the following update:
>

> "Update: Jesse Silver aka silverguru <http://twitter.com/silverguru> has
>
> > posted<http://silverguru.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/inaugural-post-controversy...>about "an olive branch to the CCIF community" that will be offered tomorrow.

> > He confirmed plans for an alliance separate from CCIF but said that the site
> > was out of date and would be taken down pending more information. He also

> > denied any connection with opencloudalliance.com<http://whois.domaintools.com/opencloudalliance.com>and related domains and on further inspection these are registered to Mark

> > Trang (Salesforce's Director, ISV Marketing and Programs) at home using a
> > personal email and may not be related to any official Salesforce.com

> > initiative. Both domains were discovered with a domain search<http://domain-search.domaintools.com/?q=cloudalliance>and could well be coincidental."

>
> The branding of the proposed "alliance" is identical to that recently
> introduced for the CCIF website (http://www.cloudforum.org/), and as Matt
> pointed out, Reuven personally owns the domain - this has evidently been in
> the works for longer than even I had anticipated.
>
> I also neglected to draw attention to Reuven's August "Cloud Computing

> Alliance<http://groups.google.com/group/cloudcamp/browse_thread/thread/871ec2a...>"

> post about how we might "financially organize ourselves for the development
> of a Cloud Computing", and some pertinent feedback:
>
> Also the boards composition should include large business consumers of cloud
>
> > computing and not simply technology vendors. I'd advise carefully avoiding a
> > technology consortium pushing the interests of vendors and not the consumers
> > of cloud computing.
>
> There's also comments in more recent posts right up to "Introducing the Open

> Cloud Manifesto<http://www.elasticvapor.com/2009/03/introducing-open-cloud-manifesto....>
> ":

>
> This is just one of several initiatives and announcements we will be making
>
> > in the coming weeks as we move to organize the Cloud Computing
> > Interoperability Forum (CCIF) and Cloud Camp into a formalized organization.
>
> I've just spent an hour or two on the phone with Jesse trying to find some
> middle ground ahead of what promises to be another turbulent week for cloud
> computing. In particular I was looking for a way that Reuven & Jesse might
> be able to attend officially on behalf of the CCIF rather than as
> individuals (for example by throwing the CCIF's objectives open to
> discussion per below). As it stands it seems clear everyone (CCIF members,
> outsiders, the press, and those they are meeting) views them as official
> representatives, yet we don't know their position and I'm not sure how they
> could know ours without having asked.
>
> Expecting to see some clarity on this in the coming hours, but in the mean
> time going to try salvage what's left of the weekend.
>
> Sam
>

> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 2:12 PM, JP Morgenthal <jpmorgent...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Matt,
>
> >   My point to Sam was he did such a great job embedding links to
> > important information, but he had left out one of the critical pieces
> > of information that is implicit, but for some needed to be explicit.
>
> >  http://www.whois.net/whois/cloudalliance.org
>
> >   Although, I agree with Matt, this is hardly a nefarious point,
> > especially given the following:
>
> >             Created On:21-Dec-2007 18:17:36 UTC
>
> >    Do we accept that Reuven is now Nostradamus?  I believe it
> > illustrates an early attempt to create what would become CCIF.
>
> > JP
> > On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Matthew Zito <mz...@gridapp.com> wrote:
>
> > > Rueven is the registrant, if you look at the whois info.
>
> > > I'm not saying that there's anything nefarious going on, but that
> > > website is ruv's.
>
> > > Matt
>

> > > On Mar 29, 2009, at 8:56 AM, "JP Morgenthal" <jpmorgent...@gmail.com>

> > > wrote:
>
> > >> Sam,
>
> > >>    I've read your posting multiple times to see if I could discern
> > >> this, but I do not see how Reuven is linked to the cloudalliance.org
> > >> website.  I'm not saying that this is not the case, but I believe we
> > >> need to understand how you are making this connection if we are to
> > >> accept your premise that after all that's occurred there's still more
> > >> behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing going on that is vendor-led and
> > >> that this group has not had an opportunity to participate in.
>
> > >> JP
> > >> -----------------------------------------------
> > >> JP Morgenthal
> > >> cell : 703-554-5301

> > >> email: jpmorgent...@gmail.com

> > >> email: m...@jpmorgenthal.com
> > >> twitter:www.twitter.com/jpmorgenthal
> > >> blog:www.jpmorgenthal.com/morgenthal
>

> ...
>
> read more »