Clarification on the Open Cloud Manifesto

[Reuven Cohen]

I want make a quick point of clarification on the Open Cloud Manifesto and my involvement. I am not the "leader" or "instigator" of the manifesto. I am among a broader group of supporters & co-authors of this document, all of which have had equal involvement. Some of the recent media reports have mis-characterized me as being the sole creator or originator which is not correct. This effort would never have come together without the wider industry support and backing of the dozens of companies involved.

This manifesto must not be about anyone company or individual but instead the opportunity we share collectively to enable an open interoperable cloud ecosystem.

I am but one eager supporter like everyone else.

Reuven Cohen

[Wayne Horkan]

Hi Reuven,

Apologies, but I had to chuckle when I saw this email, because if you're
not an "instigator" why do you sign yourself as "CCIF Instigator" in the
majority of your emails to the group?

Such as the last one entitled "Microsoft / CCIF Update".

I'm sure I've heard a saying like this before, oh yes that's it, "doth
protest too much, methinks".

If that's how you see yourself and feel people recognise you, perhaps
you should state it explicitly, and say outright this is my gig get
behind me guys, otherwise perhaps stepping back a little would be
appropriate and letting others speak for the group; such as at the MS
meeting you have going on in New York.

I have to say as an interested, but at arms length, party, it all looks
a little open closed open, at the very least that's what people are saying.

All the best,

Wayne

P.S.

Here's to a healthy dose of British humor, a spoonful of objectivity,
and just a dash of cynicism...

[Reuven Cohen]

I was a referring to the Open Cloud Manifesto which I am not.

Yes, I am an instigator of this group although several others help moderate.

ruv

[Wayne Horkan]

Hi Reuven,

It's heavily implied that you are; the fact that you are meeting with MS in representing the Open Cloud Manifesto is very clear indication of this.

What do the rest of the group think? 

Wayne

[JP Morgenthal]

As someone who has been a formal IT industry analyst on and off for
years, I have seen this many times; especially through the
introduction of XML and Java into the community (funny, Sun is also
always involved in these back door secret initiatives and usually
Microsoft is on the outside indicating their distrust of the overall
effort).

Reuven has found himself in the hotseat and the vendor community is
getting behind a voice that they deem is being listened to. This is
typical of the vendor community.

On the positive side, the vendors have money and can put dollars
behind advancing the cause. To get government and private industry to
put this type of money up takes a lot longer time as they have less
interest until they get impacted by the fact that something like this
is missing. The OMG was primarily financed by vendors until CORBA
implementers started getting impacted by the lack of ORB
interoperability and then they took center stage.

On the negative side, these vendors are clearly trying to take a
leader role in the market using this as a means to do so.

Given these boundaries and limitations, I recommend that each vendor
sponsor a government or private industry implementer in an effort to
ensure that the effort truly meets with what the industry needs, not
just what vendors are willing to provide. Even though the vendor is
sponsoring the implementer, I believe their experience and the fact
that they will be investing real dollars in Cloud will spur some level
of integrity into the process.

That's my $0.02.

As for you looking to chew on Reuven's backside. Cut the guy some
slack. He did organize alot of this effort, but also needs to make
sure ego doesn't end up being his undoing e.g. let's do our job and
keep him grounded.

Reuven, perhaps settling for a blended scotch versus 18 yo single malt
might make it sounds like you're feet are still on the ground here!
;-)
-----------------------------------------------
JP Morgenthal
cell : 703-554-5301
email: jpmorg...@gmail.com
email: m...@jpmorgenthal.com
twitter: www.twitter.com/jpmorgenthal
blog: www.jpmorgenthal.com/morgenthal

[Alejandro Espinoza]

Hi to all,

I think this discussion is getting nowhere, still I feel I must express my opinion. I think the whole problem is not really related to whether Reuven should lead this thing in New York or not. He is the leader no matter what anybody has to say about it. He started the whole thing and he has my vote of confidence regarding the meeting in with Microsoft.

The problem is the way things are being handled. Why the secrecy? I think we are at a point in this industry where we have learned that Open processes (really open) are way more productive and beneficial than a closed one. Specially when, allegedly, the process is being done by a group whose supposed to endorse an open process with all CC vendors. (I must say that a private meeting of the leaders of this group with specific vendors to create the manifesto is not really a very trustful action, and not open to say the least).

I have to say that I am very disappointed that I had to learn about the Manifesto (which supposedly is supported by this group) by a Microsoft employee blog post. I feel betrayed, specially because this manifesto is being created by this group, but there was no discussion about it.

I understand FULLY the fact that Reuven wanted to have a starting point, but a starting point for this kind of documents is done by a sole person, and then brings it up in a group discussion. After Monday there is no discussion. The manifesto is already in version 1.09. Which means it was built completely as an outside process of this group. Which actually saddens me. Because it invalidates the group's purpose.

I have to say I support Reuven in his decisions, and I will still follow his trail, as I have done lately. But this group is invalid. When a the corner stone of the group is built without the group, it just means that this is not a group for creating, but more for distributing and evangelizing integration from an outside source. It means that nothing is going to get done here other than distribution. Which makes the group invalid to me, since I like to eat my OWN dog food and not somebody elses.

Respectfully,

--
Alex Espinoza | Structum | Principal Architect

- Twitter: http://twitter.com/alespinoza
- Blog: http://neonlabs.structum.net/blog
- Website: http://www.structum.net

The information transmitted in this communication is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please destroy any copies and delete from any computer system(s).

[Sam Johnston]

On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com> wrote:

I was a referring to the Open Cloud Manifesto which I am not.

If not then why would you take it upon yourself to post about "Introducing the Open Cloud Manifesto", resulting in coverage like the Slashdot article which has CCIF pasted all over it:

Over the last few weeks I have been working closely with several of the largest technology companies and organizations helping to co-author the Open Cloud Manifesto. Our goal is to draft a document that clearly states we (including dozens of supporting companies) believe that like the Internet, the cloud itself should be open.
...
If you would like to be part of the discussion we invite you to get involved at our Open Cloud Manifesto Discussion Group or on the Cloud Computing Interoperability Forum (CCIF).

This appears at face value to be a fairly obvious attempt to arrogate an IBM initiative, only without the support of the group on whose behalf you are acting as self-appointed BDFL. Are you even sure it's you specifically that Microsoft want to talk to given you've just finished calling them liars?

Yes, I am an instigator of this group although several others help moderate.

Quoting your "Reaffirming the CCIF Goals and Mission" post from less than 3 weeks ago:

2) A community site for professional, open and unmoderated discussion, relating to cloud computing interoperability

"Professional" and "open" assertions aside, I haven't forgotten (having until very recently been effectively excluded from the conversation and then banned) and I'm surprised you need reminding.

Anyway I already pronounced the time of death of this group around the start of the month but I feel compelled to stick around because of the havoc it has proven itself capable of wreaking on the community. Given the insistence to press on business as usual despite a fever pitch of protests (with zero admissions of wrongdoing nor signs of remorse no less) is breathtakingly stubborn and a sure sign of trouble ahead.

Sam

PS I'd have happily kept my mouth shut and watched the fireworks had you not just bitched about and anonymously vandalised Wikipedia yet again, inexplicably removing links to a community wiki that is not afflicted by any of the sort of BS politics this group is, only to silently replace it with your own. The great thing about Wikipedia is that it doesn't forget self-promotional shenanigans like here, here, here, here and here (x2). I don't appreciate being accused of bias by the self-proclaimed king of conflicts either, particularly in dispute of praise. Give it up already.

[Wayne Horkan]

Hi JP (does that stand for John Paul by the way?),

I work at Sun, and although I can't speak for Sun in this regard, I personally have no interest in seeing Microsoft being 'shut out' as you imply; in fact I hope I'm trying to be objective because possibly alienating one of the potentially largest Cloud providers isn't inclusive, it's not very inclusive at all.  And I suspect that this would be the message you'd likely see from Sun corporate wise too.

There may be fundamental architectural reasons why complying with the Open Cloud Manifesto is extremely difficult or near on impossible for MS; and frankly the MS engineers are probably the best placed to qualify and interpret this.  These items, as well as Microsoft's level of participation, need to be understood before people jump to any conclusions in regards to the statements coming out of MS.

Reuven has already brought this point to bear in his statement "it remains apparent that Microsoft was and still is committed to an open cloud ecosystem".

And I don't think it's particularly kind nor useful trying to imply issues in regards to Sun and Microsoft; that's a very well worn set of conversations that add nothing to the announcement of the Open Cloud Manifesto, it's impact as a whole, nor it's ongoing evolution.

I agree we should be supporting Reuven, I think everybody concerned would say that his work to date has been exceptional and that everyone has benefited, but some of the rhetoric of the last few posts has been a little interesting to say the least.

Perhaps being inclusive and allowing some other representation would be useful and ultimately seen as more equitable by the community.  Or at least growing and making the CCIF committee responsible for the Open Cloud Manifesto, and how it operates, much more transparent and accessible.

Wayne

[Bert Armijo]

>>> (Rueven) did organize alot of this effort

Yes he did. And that's gotten him quoted in numerous articles, he's keynoting conferences, etc . . . all as organizer of the CCIF. And that's all fine and well deserved.

However, being a spokesperson comes with responsibility to the participants in CCIF, because without your participation no one would care about the group. That's what was forgotten in this instance and that's why people are upset. The goodwill they"ve helped create was essentially hijacked without their knowledge to endorse a particular vendor's marketing effort.

Perhaps he didn't realize IBM uses these types of documents to position their sales efforts against competitors. I don't know that he's ever had to sell against them, so it's possible. However, had he opened this up to the group, other members who have would surely have brought it up.

[Bert Armijo]

>>>Why the secrecy?

Contolling position documents like this is exceptionally valuable to large vendor's efforts.

---

From: cloud...@googlegroups.com <cloud...@googlegroups.com>
To: cloud...@googlegroups.com <cloud...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Sat Mar 28 20:41:46 2009

Subject: Re: Clarification on the Open Cloud Manifesto

[Sam Johnston]

On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 2:09 AM, Bert Armijo <be...@3tera.com> wrote:

>>> (Rueven) did organize alot of this effort

Yes he did. And that's gotten him quoted in numerous articles, he's keynoting conferences, etc . . . all as organizer of the CCIF. And that's all fine and well deserved.

And not to forget a seat at the infamous table.
 

However, being a spokesperson comes with responsibility to the participants in CCIF, because without your participation no one would care about the group. That's what was forgotten in this instance and that's why people are upset. The goodwill they"ve helped create was essentially hijacked without their knowledge to endorse a particular vendor's marketing effort.

There's a sense of déjà vu here with the 7,000+ strong Enomaly "instigated" cloud-computing group which was hijacked and used to bootstrap the Cloud Slam 09 conference by an employee Reuven is said to have fired. As a key contributor in the early days I feel somewhat the same about Gracenote's misappropriating of CDDB. Just drawing attention to the pattern.

Perhaps he didn't realize IBM uses these types of documents to position their sales efforts against competitors. I don't know that he's ever had to sell against them, so it's possible. However, had he opened this up to the group, other members who have would surely have brought it up.

This I think is one of the critical issues - by silently wheeling a trojan horse into the town square the entire industry has missed a great opportunity and fueled our opposition in the process.

I'm happy to concede that Reuven (and as a result, CCIF) has been a pawn on a well-worn chess board, just as soon as he does.

Sam

[JP Morgenthal]

Wayne,

Your message doesn't even dignify a response and if I were Sun, I'd
reprimand you for representing them in this forum.

However, because I know people have short attention spans and will
deem you as someone who actually read my message to the end, I will
reiterate the major tenet of my message, which succinctly about a way
to bring about integrity to this process and to ensure that both
vendors and non-vendors are represented appropriately. With regard to
the Sun comment all I did was reiterate well known history.
Furthermore, my message went on to discuss the positive and negative
sides of having a vendor-led consortium on these issues.

In the future, please do not take it upon yourself to summarize my
words as you are not someone who is capable of representing me
accurately or with integrity.

Sincerely,
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

[Wayne Horkan]

Thanks for that JP, however I'm not representing Sun in this forum, although I am very interested in the work of the CCIF.

A single positive for and single negative against is not a summary really is it, it's more an opinion piece.

And as to your recommendation, well it's pure conjecture until you, or someone else, champions it as an engagement model, and it becomes adopted.

Many thanks for the response though, it did make me smile rather.

Wayne