List of Achievable Tasks

[George Reese]

A number of people have put a lot of effort into the CCIF and begun a
very important conversation. And I certainly heard a number of great
conversations both at CloudCamp and CCIF Wall Street this past week.
But we're having a hard time getting beyond talk right now. Some of it
is because of personality clashes, some of it is because of honest
mistakes, some of it is because it's hard to get people with so many
diverse agendas to agree on things.

I think the real problem is that everyone reads different things into
the concept of interoperability. Voltaire said, "If you wish to
converse with me, define your terms."

#1 Define a set of mantras for the CCIF. Specifically, why does it
exist? This may be an insurmountable obstacle. If I were starting a
CCIF today, the first thing I would do is establish *my* answer to the
this question. If people buy into it, they join. If they don't, then
it wasn't worth doing. But now this thing is more than the original
founder's baby. It's a lot of people's baby. And they all see
different things in it.

It's not my place to come up with a mantra; but it's also rude to
offer complaints without offering constructive alternatives. Here's
the challenge: a mantra has to be about three words. Or less. I'll
give a try at one:

Customer Choice in the Cloud

Or, к капитализму (old USSR play on words, never mind)

#2 Propose a board structure. This will be revised later as you
negotiate vendor participation. I suggest a 7 person board: 2 large
company, 2 small company, 2 customer, 1 chairman elected by the
membership.

#3 Identify critical vendors to drive this mantra forward. Either a)
this should include Amazon or b) it should include basically everyone
else AND the mantra is such that Amazon should be ashamed not to be
involved. All they should have to agree to is a mantra and a proposed
bored structure over which they have some level of influence. That's
it.

#4 Elect board reflective of the agreed board structure. The board
drafts bylaws for a non-profit to be formed. Submit the bylaws to the
membership for approval.

#5. Move forward with grander visions based on democracy, not anarchy,
autocracy, or demagoguery.

OK, so that's what I think. I hope everyone finds it constructive even
if they hate it.

[JP Morgenthal]

So George, as per your #2 below, does this infer that only corporate
entities have anything to offer here and individuals have no place?
Give me a break.
-----------------------------------------------
JP Morgenthal
cell : 703-554-5301
email: jpmorg...@gmail.com
email: m...@jpmorgenthal.com
twitter: www.twitter.com/jpmorgenthal
blog: www.jpmorgenthal.com/morgenthal



2009/4/3 George Reese <george...@imaginary.com>:

[David Bernstein (daberns)]

JP

I had proposed that the community elect a board where statistics will apply. One human one vote. I think the community will want a diverse board representing the community demographics and that's how it will turn out.

Don't disengage, we need everyone, process is not decided yet.

[Sam Johnston]

2009/4/4 David Bernstein (daberns) <dab...@cisco.com>

JP

I had proposed that the community elect a board where statistics will apply. One human one vote. I think the community will want a diverse board representing the community demographics and that's how it will turn out.

Don't disengage, we need everyone, process is not decided yet.

+1

That said I don't think it matters if we're walking rather than talking; that is churning out deliverables like whitepapers on the business case for cloud computing rather than making pronouncements about which standards are best (which will go largely ignored anyway). The former needs supporting infrastructure, the latter (possibly) needs democracy.

I've been on boards of various System Administrators Guilds for years and ad-hoc works very well for us. We basically see ourselves like janitors, supporting the community rather than standing on its shoulders. I think this is a key component of the "2.0" part of @ruv's "Trade Association 2.0".

I don't think there would be much controversy over formalising a committee that looked something like:

• Reuven Cohen - Evangelist
• Jesse Silver - Marketing/PR
• Sam Charrington - Business Liaison
  
• Sam Johnston - Community
• 3 or 4 other functional managers (what functions? who?)
  

I've left Dave Neilsen off because, as has been pointed out by one of the creators and a key stakeholder, CloudCamp is a separate animal.

The question of a leader is outstanding, though there have been many interesting names suggested and people like Paul Borrill are already on the list.

Sam

[Sam Charrington]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Sam. 

That said, I think George presented the list in the right order. First we need to clarify the mission, then we can figure out the right structure and team to help us get there. Reuven's "Management Team" declaration on Thursday was disappointing, and while yours was more tactful the effect is the same.

I'm starting a separate CCIF Mission/Mantra thread based my notes from the Goals/Platform/Marketing Efforts discussion in NY and hopefully we can converge on something pretty quickly.

The other discussions (governance, standards, etc.) should obviously happen in parallel.

Sam Charrington 

(Speaking as an individual deeply committed to advocacy and openness as goals of the CCIF, as opposed to my other self which is apparently part of a secret cabal :-)

2009/4/4 Sam Johnston <sa...@samj.net>

[Jesse L Silver]

2009/4/4 Sam Charrington <s...@charrington.com>

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Sam. 

Yes, thank you Sam. I am personally excited to get on with the work of making this happen.

That said, I think George presented the list in the right order. First we need to clarify the mission, then we can figure out the right structure and team to help us get there.

+1 I am writing up my own summary of this right now.
 

Reuven's "Management Team" declaration on Thursday was disappointing, and while yours was more tactful the effect is the same.

+1, I am excited to be part of any committees or governance bodies but until we all agree on that, I am an independent voice.

I'm starting a separate CCIF Mission/Mantra thread based my notes from the Goals/Platform/Marketing Efforts discussion in NY and hopefully we can converge on something pretty quickly.

See you there.

The other discussions (governance, standards, etc.) should obviously happen in parallel.

Sam Charrington 

(Speaking as an individual deeply committed to advocacy and openness as goals of the CCIF, as opposed to my other self which is apparently part of a secret cabal :-)

I, as well, am deeply committed cloud advocacy. I hope this group can find a way of doing so that serves everyone's interests... looks like we're getting there!

--
Jesse Silver
c: 310-766-2006
http://www.jesselsilver.com
twitter.com/silverguru

[Reuven Cohen]

Regarding the proposed organizational structure, it is something I can also get behind.

Admittedly last Thursday's email about the official organizers was inappropriate. I acted too hastily and spoke on behalf of the group. The timing couldn't have been worse and for this I'm sorry.

Before I commit to a continued involvement with the group, I want to ensure it is clear I respect the people in the community and in return I want to know I am also working with people who show respect to each other and me. As a founder of a small but growing business this community we've created has taken up a lot of my time. And lately, not only am I being criticized by the community, I am also getting a lot of pressure from my business partners and customers. I understand a lot of you are passionate about where the CCIF is heading but some of the posts have become very personal. I do have feelings and it is hard to ignore these remarks. If I choose to continue to be involved, I'm asking that we all agree to be more respectful. I think opposition is great and helps us discuss all potential sides of a topic but we need to conduct ourselves in a professional manor, one that remembers people are involved.

Governance. I believe that in order to move past the latest debates we must focus on practical opportunities to move the industry forward rather than moral or ideological considerations that seem to dominate the conversation. I think an open source meritocracy governance modeled on the Apache foundation may be the ideal direction for the community. A model based on action -- those who step up are given responsibilities. To quote the Apache foundation "What is interesting to note is that the process (Meritocracy) scaled very well without creating friction, because unlike in other situations where power is a scarce and conservative resource, in the Apache group newcomers were seen as volunteers that wanted to help, rather than people that wanted to steal a position."

In terms of a Mission. Most have heard my opinions on this, but before we can ever hope to have an actual organization, we must have a purpose. I believe that cloud computing should be open (as summarized in six key principals). Regardless of politics we have an opportunity to actually do something other then talk. Let's be respectful, purposeful and not waste it.

Reuven

[George Reese]

I would suggest being more constructive than "give me a break".

Under my suggestion, the general cloud public would influence one of
the seats: the chair. General membership would include individuals.

In addition, here's the cold reality:

Any organization that is not focused on the needs of end customers
with buy in from major vendors is nothing more than mental
masturbation.

And, finally, what I posted was just something to throw darts at. I do
not expect that everyone suddenly go, "Wow! That's exactly right!"

I do expect something more constructive than "give me a break".

On 4 avr, 15:31, JP Morgenthal <jpmorgent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So George, as per your #2 below, does this infer that only corporate
> entities have anything to offer here and individuals have no place?
> Give me a break.
> -----------------------------------------------
> JP Morgenthal
> cell : 703-554-5301

> email: jpmorgent...@gmail.com

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

> 2009/4/3 George Reese <george.re...@imaginary.com>:

[George Reese]

I think I should expand upon why I don't like mission statements,
especially in this context.

In short, the more words you ask people to commit to up front, the
more opportunity there is for disagreement--both principled and
emotional. At this point, we really want a core concept which:

a) Captures the bare essence of what we believe in here
b) Can be agreed to by all those who we would like to have agree to it
c) Can form a meaningful basis for future decision making

Mantras do that well.

-George

[George Reese]

I don't find this problematic at all.

Whether it's a board that looks exactly what I posted, or it's a
committee that looks exactly like what Sam posted, I think the
important thing is that it is a group of people armed with an
appropriate mantra/mission tasked by some kinda of general assent with
making decisions about the general structure of the organization.

I would add one thing though: I think it is critical that there be
committed customer representation and that Amazon be given every
reasonable opportunity to engage. I can expand on those thoughts if
the rationale is not commonly accepted (or if I have not given enough
argument for one to accept or reject a rationale).

-George

On 4 avr, 16:34, Sam Johnston <s...@samj.net> wrote:
> I don't think there would be much controversy over formalising a committee
> that looked something like:
>

>    - Reuven Cohen - Evangelist
>    - Jesse Silver - Marketing/PR
>    - Sam Charrington - Business Liaison
>    - Sam Johnston - Community
>    - 3 or 4 other functional managers (what functions? who?)

[Jesse L Silver]

A number of people have put a lot of effort into the CCIF and begun a
very important conversation. And I certainly heard a number of great
conversations both at CloudCamp and CCIF Wall Street this past week.
But we're having a hard time getting beyond talk right now. Some of it
is because of personality clashes, some of it is because of honest
mistakes, some of it is because it's hard to get people with so many
diverse agendas to agree on things.

No, I think it's because of personality clashes, honest mistakes, and some of it because it's hard to get people with so many diverse agendas to agree on things

;) <<--- big wink
 

I think the real problem is that everyone reads different things into
the concept of interoperability. Voltaire said, "If you wish to
converse with me, define your terms."

#1 Define a set of mantras for the CCIF. Specifically, why does it
exist? This may be an insurmountable obstacle. If I were starting a
CCIF today, the first thing I would do is establish *my* answer to the
this question. If people buy into it, they join. If they don't, then
it wasn't worth doing. But now this thing is more than the original
founder's baby. It's a lot of people's baby. And they all see
different things in it.

I would worry more about why it's GOING to keeping existing, though maybe this is semantic.

It's not my place to come up with a mantra; but it's also rude to
offer complaints without offering constructive alternatives. Here's
the challenge: a mantra has to be about three words. Or less. I'll
give a try at one:

Customer Choice in the Cloud

Good to take a stab at this. I think customer choice is too interoperability focused. I believe we should, for the time being, move more in the advocacy/marketing/customer support direction. How about CCIF as a "customer/vendor linkage", an org where customers can talk directly to many vendors at once and get their collective response, and for vendors to come up with new ways of using their technologies and communicate that directly to the customers. Consultants and VARS are also important here.

Or, к капитализму (old USSR play on words, never mind)

#2 Propose a board structure. This will be revised later as you
negotiate vendor participation. I suggest a 7 person board: 2 large
company, 2 small company, 2 customer, 1 chairman elected by the
membership.

This may be a good start, though I disagree on the specifics. Let's rally around a mission first and then deal with the board (I suspect that those who help build consensus on the mission will form the provisional board).

#3 Identify critical vendors to drive this mantra forward. Either a)
this should include Amazon or b) it should include basically everyone
else AND the mantra is such that Amazon should be ashamed not to be
involved. All they should have to agree to is a mantra and a proposed
bored structure over which they have some level of influence. That's
it.

Yes, should include Amazon. But as you say, I agree that if they don't join up front we should run a campaign to shame them into joining.
 

#4 Elect board reflective of the agreed board structure. The board
drafts bylaws for a non-profit to be formed. Submit the bylaws to the
membership for approval.

#5. Move forward with grander visions based on democracy, not anarchy,
autocracy, or demagoguery.

OK, so that's what I think. I hope everyone finds it constructive even
if they hate it.

Ok - so here's my list (based on yours with additions):
1. Build consensus around mission.
2. Reach out to customer groups separated by vertical industry (or not).
3. Build a provisional government made up of many constituencies.
4. Get funded!!!!
5. Rebrand
6. Finalize government and hold a vote on final bylaws.
7. Go out and do good.
 

[Jesse L Silver]

I would add one thing though: I think it is critical that there be
committed customer representation and that Amazon be given every
reasonable opportunity to engage. I can expand on those thoughts if
the rationale is not commonly accepted (or if I have not given enough
argument for one to accept or reject a rationale).

Could this be our mantra? :-)

-George

On 4 avr, 16:34, Sam Johnston <s...@samj.net> wrote:
> I don't think there would be much controversy over formalising a committee
> that looked something like:
>
>    - Reuven Cohen - Evangelist
>    - Jesse Silver - Marketing/PR
>    - Sam Charrington - Business Liaison
>    - Sam Johnston - Community
>    - 3 or 4 other functional managers (what functions? who?)

[JP Morgenthal]

> Any organization that is not focused on the needs of end customers
> with buy in from major vendors is nothing more than mental
> masturbation.

This came across loud and clear in your sentiments, and give me a
break was a lot nicer than what I was thinking. It's also incredibly
dismissive of those in academia and those who are trying to
participate in a community of interest, regardless if they are
directly involved at this time or not. Yes, let's let the vendors run
the openness of this effort, because they've done so well in the past
at creating open, interoperable platforms.

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

2009/4/4 George Reese <george...@imaginary.com>:

[Jesse L Silver]

Ruv- Thanks for writing this.

Your creation of this group and the ensuing activation of the cloud community is on its way, despite the speed bumps, to producing a spectacular result. A result that, I believe, will literally change the face of the tech industry as we know it.
You have my utmost respect and personal gratitude, and I am sure that most people feel the same way. If they don't, they need to rethink the importance of an "instigator", as you so aptly put it.

I'd like to applaud Reuven for getting this off the ground and carrying far enough that others want to help carry the mantle. I hope others will join.

Thanks,
Jesse

[George Reese]

On 4 avr, 19:47, JP Morgenthal <jpmorgent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This came across loud and clear in your sentiments, and give me a
> break was a lot nicer than what I was thinking.  

What you wrote was not constructive, so I am thankful you did not post
what you were thinking.

Is it really too much to ask you to participate constructively?

> It's also incredibly
> dismissive of those in academia and those who are trying to
> participate in a community of interest, regardless if they are
> directly involved at this time or not.

Dismissive in what way? I have acknowledged a) the breakdown I was
proposing would not likely survive scrutiny and b) that it's just
something to throw darts at and c) that it does include a seat for non-
corporate interests.

So, given that, why are you so ready to dismiss the whole content of
my post based on irrelevant details about board make up? The title of
the thread is "List of Achievable Tasks", not "Proposed CCIF Board".

The task is to create a decision-making entity, not to "accept
George's recommendations on the make-up of a board of directors".

>  Yes, let's let the vendors run
> the openness of this effort, because they've done so well in the past
> at creating open, interoperable platforms.

I am not "letting the vendors run the openness effort". In fact, the
irrelevant details of my board proposal that would never see the light
of day gave vendors 4 of 7 seats. That's not letting vendors run the
effort.

And, by the way, I haven't heard any proposals from you on a better
way to approach this problem. I've just seen you complain very rudely.

-George

[Alexis Richardson]

OK guys. Enough fighting on this one please.

[George Reese]

On 4 avr, 19:11, Jesse L Silver <silverg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would worry more about why it's GOING to keeping existing, though maybe
> this is semantic.
>

No, I think it's a good point.

> > Customer Choice in the Cloud
>
> Good to take a stab at this. I think customer choice is too interoperability
> focused. I believe we should, for the time being, move more in the
> advocacy/marketing/customer support direction. How about CCIF as a
> "customer/vendor linkage", an org where customers can talk directly to many
> vendors at once and get their collective response, and for vendors to come
> up with new ways of using their technologies and communicate that directly
> to the customers. Consultants and VARS are also important here.

If it's more about advocacy, I think that's easier for companies like
Amazon to buy into.

> This may be a good start, though I disagree on the specifics. Let's rally
> around a mission first and then deal with the board (I suspect that those
> who help build consensus on the mission will form the provisional board).

I agree.

> Yes, should include Amazon. But as you say, I agree that if they don't join
> up front we should run a campaign to shame them into joining.

Though, I would say it should be clear the goal of the organization is
not to bully Amazon into abiding by the wishes of [INSERT NAME OF
VESTED PARTY HERE]. The key point is that the organization should be
so obviously serving the customer interests that any cloud player who
opposes the entity is obviously not acting in the customer interest. I
would hope that Amazon and all other vendors would want to engage the
market in support of their customers.

And, if the mission/mantra is sound, those who are thwarting the
community efforts should be shamed.

> Ok - so here's my list (based on yours with additions):
> 1. Build consensus around mission.
> 2. Reach out to customer groups separated by vertical industry (or not).
> 3. Build a provisional government made up of many constituencies.
> 4. Get funded!!!!
> 5. Rebrand
> 6. Finalize government and hold a vote on final bylaws.
> 7. Go out and do good.
>

It's so easy to ignore the "get funded" bit, eh?

I agree with your list entirely.

[JP Morgenthal]

I provided a suggestion last week on this forum suggesting that
vendors sponsor customers in order to participate

--
Sent from my mobile device

[Matthew Zito]

Along those lines, it seems like we easily could have said that there's three generic corporate seats, two customers, and two academic/independent/analyst types.

Jonathan, is your objection that someone from Cisco presented a theoretical board breakdown that didn't have an independent spot, or enough independent spots?

If so, just propose an alternate option.

Thanks,
Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: cloud...@googlegroups.com on behalf of George Reese
Sent: Sat 4/4/2009 9:06 PM
To: Cloud Computing Interoperability Forum (CCIF)
Subject: Re: List of Achievable Tasks

[George Reese]

If I did not make it clear at this start of this thread, I should make
it clear now: I appreciate and respect the effort Reuven and everyone
else has put in to making this happen way the hell before I came in
late and added my $0.02. I make my suggestions right now only out of
the respect for what has been done and what it could be as a result.

-George

[David Bernstein (daberns)]

Hi

 

For the record, I from Cisco did not propose any breakdown, I proposed a vote of candidates, with no bucketization requirements at all.

 

Thank You

 

David Bernstein

Cisco.

[George Reese]

Just to make things clear, I'm not from Cisco. I am from a small start-
up in the upper midwest :)

-George

(Not that there's anything wrong with being from Cisco) :)

[Matthew Zito]

Just to further clarify - I'm writing from a family event, probably when i should be paying attention to non-technical things, but I clearly conflated a couple of different people's comments into one aggregate post.

I blame OWA or my niece.  Or both.  Or just me.

[Dave Nielsen]

2009/4/4 Jesse L Silver <silve...@gmail.com>

  

2009/4/3 George Reese <george...@imaginary.com>: 

It's not my place to come up with a mantra; but it's also rude to
offer complaints without offering constructive alternatives. Here's
the challenge: a mantra has to be about three words. Or less. I'll
give a try at one:

Customer Choice in the Cloud

Good to take a stab at this. I think customer choice is too interoperability focused. I believe we should, for the time being, move more in the advocacy/marketing/customer support direction. How about CCIF as a "customer/vendor linkage", an org where customers can talk directly to many vendors at once and get their collective response, and for vendors to come up with new ways of using their technologies and communicate that directly to the customers. Consultants and VARS are also important here.

How about "Advocacy for the Cloud Computing Customer" ?

Dave Nielsen
Co-founder, CloudCamp
m: 415-531-6674
skype: davenielsen
twitter: davenielsen

[George Reese]

I very much like this proposal.

[Alexis Richardson]

Personally I am with George and Dave on this notion, so +1.

Thanks everyone for being so forthcoming with their ideas, notes,
proposals, and plans.

Bear in mind this is a starting point of a journey, and need not be
the whole story. I appreciate that some of the big guns have
appropriately bigger plans.

Well done guys, today has seen a lot of progress.

[Reuven Cohen]

+1 (Advocacy for the Cloud Computing Customer)

r/c

[Matthew Zito]

I like it - short, sweet, open enough that we can cover a lot of ground, closed enough that it's clear we're not just talking about cloud computing purely in the abstract.  It has a sense of perspective.  +1

Matt


-----Original Message-----
From: cloud...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Reuven Cohen
Sent: Sat 4/4/2009 10:10 PM
To: cloud...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: List of Achievable Tasks

[Jesse L Silver]

+1 from me as well.

[tluk...@exnihilum.com]

May I remind all of two posts that I'd made a while back:

Re: Examining Cloud Compatibility, Portability and Interoperability on 02/28/2009 06:46 PM

"..it appears that collectively we share a belief that Cloud Portability, Interoperability and Compatibility are necessary to mitigate risks and minimize financial losses to organizations moving to and from the Cloud, and to help protect and insure the continuation of their business operations when (for any reason) a Cloud-hosted solution must be relocated."

Re: The Universal Amazon EC2 API Adapter (UEC2) on 03/05/2009 03:38 PM

>> "..CCIF isn't existing to judge the "coolness" of one Cloud vs. another, but to advocate for those business that will put their success and continuity in the hands of a Cloud vendor, which we can only do by mitigating, reducing and minimizing the risk of developing and hosting business critical applications in the Cloud."

I'm glad that the group is ready to get behind and agree on customer advocacy as a major reason for people showing up here for work.

TL

[Bert Armijo]

I hate to be a wet blanket, but the ratio of customers to vendors at these meetings has been pretty skewed. Is this positioning something that'll hold up under scrutiny from the press, etc?

---

From: cloud...@googlegroups.com <cloud...@googlegroups.com>
To: cloud...@googlegroups.com <cloud...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat Apr 04 23:57:59 2009

Subject: Re: List of Achievable Tasks

+1 from me as well.

On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Matthew Zito <mz...@gridapp.com> wrote:

I like it - short, sweet, open enough that we can cover a lot of ground, closed enough that it's clear we're not just talking about cloud computing purely in the abstract.  It has a sense of perspective.  +1

Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: cloud...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Reuven Cohen

[tluk...@exnihilum.com]

>> "the ratio of customers to vendors at these meetings has been pretty skewed"

Bert,

I think the point (at least the one behind my posts) is that if is we (as a group) can do anything to reduce the risks that customers face when adopting cloud computing, it can only be good for vendors as well. The less risky we can make the move to cloud computing, the better off customers and vendors will be as a result of those customers being more willing (less reluctant) to partake of vendor offerings.

Make more sense now?

TL

-----Original Message-----
From: "Bert Armijo" [be...@3tera.com]
Date: 04/05/2009 12:25 AM
To: "'cloud...@googlegroups.com'" <cloud...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: List of Achievable Tasks

I hate to be a wet blanket, but the ratio of customers to vendors at these meetings has been pretty skewed. Is this positioning something that'll hold up under scrutiny from the press, etc?

From: cloud...@googlegroups.com <cloud...@googlegroups.com>
To: cloud...@googlegroups.com <cloud...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat Apr 04 23:57:59 2009
Subject: Re: List of Achievable Tasks

+1 from me as well.

On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Matthew Zito <mz...@gridapp.com> wrote:

I like it - short, sweet, open enough that we can cover a lot of ground, closed enough that its clear were not just talking about cloud computing purely in the abstract. It has a sense of perspective. +1

XByI™

[Bert Armijo]

IMHO this needs to work outside the group as well as inside.

I wholeheartedly agree with the idea. My questions is whether press will accept the idea that 50 vendors and 5 users constitutes customer advocacy.

---

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

Sent: Sun Apr 05 01:10:25 2009

[Jesse L Silver]

Bert, I think there's a call to bring in customers earlier than later, so as to relieve this issue. Please refer to the thread I've started on this. If you want to get involved w/ bringing customers to the table now, lets go.

[Reuven Cohen]

I think we have to be realistic, at first there are going to be more vendors then customers. We should try our best to include the many companies that are using the cloud today or are at least considering it. This is where the larger vendors (Cisco, IBM, Amazon, Google etc) will be particularly useful. We also need to balance the organizational structure so a small group of larger vendors don't control the org. I think there is an opportunity for the small & large players, community and customers to all participate in some kind of formalized consumer focused cloud trade org.

Something like http://openwebfoundation.org may work well.

r/c

[Alexis Richardson]

To address Ruv's point, I'd like to share an experience from another
open standard - AMQP.

In the AMQP Working Group, we found it very useful to create a 'User
SIG'. This is a special interest group for users only. No vendors -
only customers. This group does real work. For example it met
weekly by phone for about two months in 2008, and delivered a
document: "the Business Requirements for AMQP 1.0 and 1.1". This
document has definitely helped to focus the AMQP vendors in the
working group, and to a certain extent, hold them accountable to the
users. Also, at the AMQP "face to face" last week, one of the User
group leaders spoke to the attendees (about 50 guests) in a "user to
user" way. This is all a Good Thing.

Now as to CCIF ... I think we are a little ways off being able to
sustain this much structure, but there is no reason to not create a
place on this group's shared media (eg wiki) where users can say what
they want. It's up to YOU.

I'd also encourage users, on this list, to not take any crap from vendors.

Cheers

alexis

[JP Morgenthal]

Ruv,

I think the openweb model is an excellent model to follow for the
CCIF. It seems to address many of the issues put forth to date and
will help focus on the original intent to ensure open cloud computing.

Of note, this latter point seems to be getting lost. It seems the
CCIF keeps expanding charter exponentially. Education of what the
cloud is, may be useful, but not necessary to ensure openness. This
community can contribute greatly if they'd get of their own way, stop
worrying about governance and get to the real work on openness, which
starts with a straw man describing the problem and peers expanding it
and polishing it -- just as we would expect in any other open source
effort.

Governance here is required only to the degree that a few manage
the incorporation of peer review comments back into the original
source. From the core document describing the problem domain, we can
then segment the community to deal with various interfaces at
different layers of the pie (e.g. hyper-v, OS, etc.). We can break
down the blockages to openness in small steps and set forth
expectations for customers to point to when dealing with their vendors
to say, "this is what I want".

That's leadership! That's advocacy!

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

[Reuven Cohen]

Alexis, I agree with your pionts. A user SIG may be a nice option.

@ JP - The reason we created this group in the first place was to advocate for "open cloud computing". I want to make sure we don't forget about this. I also think, like a few have suggested, we lose the word interoperability. That may be better suited to a Cloud Interop/Standards SIG.

r/c

[Alexis Richardson]

"Interoperability" is a technical term and people can disagree about
the meaning.

I think what customers want is *choice* and *low cost of change*. Not
sure how to make this map to "open"...

[Sam Johnston]

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com> wrote:

Alexis, I agree with your pionts. A user SIG may be a nice option.

+1 - it's a brilliant idea.
 

@ JP - The reason we created this group in the first place was to advocate for "open cloud computing". I want to make sure we don't forget about this. I also think, like a few have suggested, we lose the word interoperability. That may be better suited to a Cloud Interop/Standards SIG.

 
I thought the reason we created the group was for interoperability (hence the name). If we want to generalise a little (which is what it sounds like) then simply drop the guts and run with "Cloud Forum". This name fits nicely with most of what we're doing already and as a bonus we're already sitting on this domain and Google Group - weren't you the one who suggested the SEO hit we would take if we were to significantly change names?

Sam

[Eric Windisch]

On Apr 5, 2009, at 10:27 AM, Reuven Cohen wrote:

> I think we have to be realistic, at first there are going to be more
> vendors then customers. We should try our best to include the many
> companies that are using the cloud today or are at least considering
> it. This is where the larger vendors (Cisco, IBM, Amazon, Google
> etc) will be particularly useful.

Ruv, I think this depends quite a lot on interpretation as well.
Relative to the IaaS providers, the vendors themselves are customers
and users. In this regard, we've got plenty of users here. In my
eyes, the population lacking in this group are the IaaS providers, or
"Hosters" as William Fellows so described us.

For me, I found that most of the people at CCIF were, relative to me,
"users". It was helpful to me to learn in that regard, I got a lot
of information about what my potential customers might want (and why I
took so many notes). However, the lack of peers really did appear to
lock the group to a very user-centric view and limited the output to
very broad user-defined goals and expectations, at least from the view
of an IaaS. I think that this should change to a achieve a more
balanced view, through the inclusion of more IaaS providers. Perhaps
HostingCon would be a good place for the CCIF to get a booth and do
some advocacy?

I think it should also be considered that while this group is
underrepresented, the whole stack sits on their shoulders. You speak
of making sure that large vendors don't control the group, and I
agree, but I also want to make sure that it isn't entirely dictated by
the needs of PaaS and SaaS developers which, at this point, are in the
majority ;-)

I'll note that I'm not complaining though. So far, I think that my
own input has been taken and appreciated, even as a small vendor in an
unrepresented group.

--
Eric Windisch

[David Bernstein (daberns)]

Please see the original definition of Open Systems at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_system_(computing)

>> >> XByI(tm)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
> >
>

[Alexis Richardson]

That is a good definition.

It also allows us to define Open Cloud to mean "cloud as an open
system, using the definition of open system in wikipedia".

I would be happy with that.

[Reuven Cohen]

@David.B, That sounds great, I would also be fine with that the definition. (Open systems are computer systems that provide some combination of interoperability, portability, and open software standards.)

@sam.j, I'm not to concerned with SEO. The new org will have a marketing budget for those sorts of activities.

ruv

[Sam Johnston]

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis.r...@gmail.com> wrote:

That is a good definition.

It also allows us to define Open Cloud to mean "cloud as an open
system, using the definition of open system in wikipedia".

I would be happy with that.

The open systems definition is a very low bar to set for "Open Cloud" (virtually everything qualifies) and I am quite sure this will be contentious (in fact I already know it is). That is not to say that we need to go as far as the Open Software Service Definition but finding the middle ground is a large and complex problem in itself. It's also largely tangential to meeting the needs of this group.

Sam

[Reuven Cohen]

@sam.j, If we set the bar too high it will be hard to get broad industry participation. Let's focus on getting everyone to the table first, then work on the harder task of consensus building.

ruv

[Misha Nossik]

Dave Nielsen> How about "Advocacy for the Cloud Computing Customer" ?

Dave, a very nice mantra.
I do believe that in addition to a mantra we will need a bit more
elaborate mission statement. My suggestion for the mission statement:
"To promote and facilitate the use of network-based resources and
services, known as "cloud computing", by educating the market,
describing the best practices and creating implementation agreements"

Misha Nossik
SIMtone.net

[Jesse L Silver]

There's a start. I'm going to start a new thread.

[Brian Gupta]

Ruv,

I have to agree with Sam here. "Open" as in "Open Systems" is too low
a bar, and becomes a meaningless modifier. If the preference is to
focus on being inclusive, I would suggest refraining from using the
marketing term "Open" in any official materials, and only add it once
you've tackled the consensus building around creating a meaningful
definition of "Open".

-Brian

--
- Brian Gupta

New York City user groups calendar:
http://nyc.brandorr.com/

[Reuven Cohen]

I think we can debate the meaning of open, but that is pointless. The open systems definition is generally agreed upon by most major companies and provides us with a basis to start from. I think we all agree that the cloud should be open and interoperable. Let's focus on making that happen by actual working together to achieve this goal by building industry consensus on some of key points of contention. I'd rather focus on consensus building around creating a meaningful definition of "Cloud Computing", -- defining cloud interop, portability, security, etc are subparts of making this happen.

r/c

[Sam Johnston]

Ok so my attempt at being subtle was apparently lost somewhere along the line...

A trade organisation, particularly a spamming^Wmarketing trade organisation, can not and will never command the trust that is required to define "Open" in this, or indeed any context (especially this one after all the water under the bridge). At best it will destroy the term which would be Bad with a capital B. Rationale: "Open" Cloud Manifesto - good intentions, opposite result.

I strongly advise so steer well clear of "Open" altogether, rather attempt to achieve minimum safe distance as quickly as possible (particularly if your view includes or in any way references "open systems" except as a counter example). The argument (and it will be a heated argument) is not on the path of least resistance for this group.

Let me know if anything needs clarifying - I'm doing my best to exercise restraint.

Sam

[Reuven Cohen]

I agree, I'd rather not debate the term open. It seems like a waste of time. I think there are more important topics to discuss. I think a name such as "Cloud Computing Forum" would be adequate.

r/c

[Jesse L Silver]

+1

[Sam Johnston]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com> wrote:

I agree, I'd rather not debate the term open. It seems like a waste of time. I think there are more important topics to discuss. I think a name such as "Cloud Computing Forum" would be adequate.

+1.

Yes.

Progress.

Optionally shorten to "Cloud Forum".

Sam.
 

[Gary Mazz]

+1

gary

Jesse L Silver wrote:
> +1
>
> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com
> <mailto:r...@enomaly.com>> wrote:
>
> I agree, I'd rather not debate the term open. It seems like a
> waste of time. I think there are more important topics to discuss.
> I think a name such as "Cloud Computing Forum" would be adequate.
>
> r/c
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Sam Johnston <sa...@samj.net
> <mailto:sa...@samj.net>> wrote:
>
> Ok so my attempt at being subtle was apparently lost somewhere
> along the line...
>
> A trade organisation, particularly a spamming^Wmarketing trade
> organisation, can not and will never command the trust that is
> required to define "Open" in this, or indeed any context
> (especially this one after all the water under the bridge). At
> best it will destroy the term which would be Bad with a
> capital B. Rationale: "Open" Cloud Manifesto - good
> intentions, opposite result.
>

> I /strongly/ advise so steer well clear of "Open" altogether,

> rather attempt to achieve minimum safe distance as quickly as
> possible (particularly if your view includes or in any way
> references "open systems" except as a counter example). The

> argument (and it will be a heated argument) is /not/ on the

[Jesse L Silver]

I like cloudforum.org, but Cloud Computing Forum as a formal name, as to relieve confusion. Totally flexible on this, just a first thought.

[Sam Johnston]

Though this mantra (thanks for the suggestion George - agree with everything you said on that point) sounds like the sort of thing I intended to invest energy into, with so many vendors it's more a case of "Advocacy to the Cloud Computing Customer". A gaggle of vendors claiming to be acting in the interests of customers is... well... "curious"... but that's not to say that we can't get customers on board. Incidentally I was pretty sure that George suggested a mantra as an substitute for rather than a prefix to a mission statement... so why was this topic even started? Another obvious, insightful yet rather rhetorical question is who would run this marketing organisation?

I think there's an easy solution to the customer "problem" staring us in the face that has been mentioned a number of times: The Open Group. But we need to establish whether it's worth it - the IPR "problem" can be solved with a few docs and a teeny tiny non-profit worth a few hundred bucks. For everyone. Not a few grand. Each.

"I believe that the IEEE has approached us because they're looking for a group of customers and vendors to begin driving this coordination. I do not think that we will give them this quickly, but it's a possibility that any group we form could evolve in this direction, if the community calls for it."

The way that this normally works is that these guys provide us an existing membership base, not vice versa - that is, after all, a large part of what we'd be paying for (and yes, we do pay, even if it's spread across the membership rather than drawn directly from the org accounts).

This is a large part of the reason why a strong case needs to be presented in support of going down this road. Traditionally it has not been possible to set up this type of organisation except using a facilitator, but that's not so much true today - as evidenced by what we've achieved already without one (in terms of numbers that is - a curiously stable 820).

Sam (who has just taken the #2 posting position from... wait for it... T®ollSEMPy).

[Bechauf, Michael]

Yes, I have also come to learn that the term "open" stirs up a lot of idiological arguments that are not particularely helpful at this stage of the game. In the end, I would suggest to articulate what the customer value should be. I think we can all agree on that, and once these are customers requirements need to be translated into actual engineering products, we will have standards that allow unencumbered implementations of whatever technical artefacts are required to achieve interoperability (virtual machine formats, security, ...). Those standards will permit both an implementation in proprietary software products as well as free software.

 

Has somebody already tried to capture what could make up customer value ? Examples:

 

- Low switching costs between cloud providers

- Well-defined communication abilities between runtime instances executed on two different clouds

- ....

 

I think we should really stay away as far as possible from terms that a customer could not clearly identify with.

 

-Michael

---

From: cloud...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cloud...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Reuven Cohen
Sent: Sunday, Apr 05, 2009 3:07 PM

To: cloud...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: List of Achievable Tasks

[Reuven Cohen]

+1

Cloud Forum is also OK, I like "computing" because the term cloud is meaningless without it.

In case I haven't stated this before, I will hand over the cloudforum.org domain to whatever organization we endup incorporating. There are no trademarks that I am aware of either. (cloudforum.com is domain parked, I don't know by whom)

r/c

[Bechauf, Michael]

Sam, I am going to say it again:

But we need to establish whether it's worth it - the IPR "problem" can be solved with a few docs and a teeny tiny non-profit worth a few hundred bucks. For everyone. Not a few grand. Each.

My simple answer is "no, what you are suggesting is not possible" for all the good arguments that David Bernstein listed yesterday.

 

I'm not sure what it will take to convince you, but if two representatives of major corporations can't convince you that creating a new org with its own membership and IPR structure is not trivial, then I don't know what else will.

 

If this forum will strictly stay on the level of "customer advocacy" and produce documents (white papers, case studies) that are shared under a Creative Commons license, then it may be possible, provided, this forum can agree when a document represents an official publication that all forum members have agreed to.

 

-Michael

 

[Jesse L Silver]

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Bechauf, Michael <michael...@sap.com> wrote:

If this forum will strictly stay on the level of "customer advocacy" and produce documents (white papers, case studies) that are shared under a Creative Commons license, then it may be possible, provided, this forum can agree when a document represents an official publication that all forum members have agreed to.

 

-Michael

Problem is some of those big companies have said that even to perform tasks of customer advocacy, including white papers and otherwise, they need the same IPR protections as an org with a wider scope. This is to foster totally open dialogue. I am no lawyer, this is just what I've been told.

I support, like Bernstein, a more sophisticated legal umbrella. This speaks to my goals of ultimate inclusiveness and extensibility of mission.

[George Reese]

I promoted the idea of a mantra *instead of* a mission.

A couple of points on why:

#1 The more words you require people to support in order to get their
support of the organization, the more likely they are to find issue
and not support it.

#2 People don't remember, understand, or reference mission statements.
The purpose of the mantra/mission statement is to establish the
strategic purpose of an organization such that all strategic decisions
MUST SUPPORT the mantra/mission and all tactical decisions MUST NOT
CONTRADICT the mantra/mission. You can't have people checking their
decisions against the mantra/mission if they don't remember or
understand it.

A mantra is something everyone in the organization can live and
breath. A mission statement is something you stick on a slide at the
beginning of each meeting of the CCIF.

The mantra "Advocacy for the Cloud Computing Customer" tells us all
strategic decisions we make must further the advocacy of cloud
computing on behalf of customers. If those decisions don't do that,
they are wrong decisions. Every single time. That kind of simplicity
makes it very easy to decentralize decision-making in a way that
supports the objectives of the organization.

-George

[Jesse L Silver]

Ok - misunderstood this.

I think this is a novel idea George, but I do think it's imperative that we outline a more detailed mission statement. I can't be with you on the mantra only approach. This will leave too many people confused on the outset. A mantra can be interpreted any number of ways, and we need to narrow the scope up front.

A mantra is a good place to start, then we need a more detailed mission statement, and finally we need a list of specific short and long term goals - IMO.

[Sam Johnston]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com> wrote:

+1

Cloud Forum is also OK, I like "computing" because the term cloud is meaningless without it.

We had a "Cloud users" group on Wikipedia and "Cloud" by itself sounds like a drug of some sort in that particular context. I don't have a problem with "Cloud Computing Forum" formally and "Cloud Forum" informally... CloudForum could well become something like "CloudCamp Pro".
 

In case I haven't stated this before, I will hand over the cloudforum.org domain to whatever organization we endup incorporating. There are no trademarks that I am aware of either. (cloudforum.com is domain parked, I don't know by whom)

Thanks for clarifying - I had assumed this to be the case. On that subject, I don't particularly want to be a SPoF for this so I've shared the keys to the castle with Eric Windisch and am hoping that someone steps up now that most of what we need is in place to [help] manage it.

Sam

[Sam Johnston]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 12:36 AM, George Reese <george...@imaginary.com> wrote:

I promoted the idea of a mantra *instead of* a mission.

+1, as I said before.

Sam
 

[Sam Johnston]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Bechauf, Michael <michael...@sap.com> wrote:

If this forum will strictly stay on the level of "customer advocacy" and produce documents (white papers, case studies) that are shared under a Creative Commons license, then it may be possible, provided, this forum can agree when a document represents an official publication that all forum members have agreed to.

That's fine because that's exactly what I had in mind - there are more than enough standards organisations already and I have already put in place a Drupal installation complete with the standard poll module for voting. If you don't already have an account then you can get one here.

While we're at it can we agree, for simplicity's sake, to license everything under CC-BY-SA 3.0 (Unported or US) and attribute to "Cloud [Computing] Forum"?

Sam

[Reuven Cohen]

mantra is unique. I'm not sure if I fully understand the differences.
But I also can support this idea.

+1

[Bechauf, Michael]

Please note my cautious "*may* be possible". As Jesse has already pointed out, other companies may be more conservative, for example when it comes to antitrust.

 

Nothing to add to what David Bernstein already wrote. It's a great summary, and should serve as a word of caution.

---

From: cloud...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cloud...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sam Johnston
Sent: Sunday, Apr 05, 2009 3:41 PM

To: cloud...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: List of Achievable Tasks

[JP Morgenthal]

+1
-----------------------------------------------
JP Morgenthal
cell : 703-554-5301
email: jpmorg...@gmail.com
email: m...@jpmorgenthal.com
twitter: www.twitter.com/jpmorgenthal
blog: www.jpmorgenthal.com/morgenthal

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Sam Johnston <sa...@samj.net> wrote:

[Jesse L Silver]

How about this - a mantra with specific goals and deliverables? Then we can skip the term mission.

If we don't outline what that "mantra" means, I fear that each person could interpret this in his or her own way, leading to debilitating confusion down the road.

[George Reese]

I don't think the risk is that great with a well-constructed mantra,
and this is one I think is well constructed.

On Apr 5, 5:53 pm, Jesse L Silver <silverg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How about this - a mantra with specific goals and deliverables? Then we can
> skip the term mission.
>
> If we don't outline what that "mantra" means, I fear that each person could
> interpret this in his or her own way, leading to debilitating confusion down
> the road.
>
> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com> wrote:
>
> > mantra is unique. I'm not sure if I fully understand the differences.
> > But I also can support this idea.
>
> > +1
>

> > On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Sam Johnston <s...@samj.net> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 12:36 AM, George Reese <

> > george.re...@imaginary.com>

[Sam Johnston]

Agreed, complicating the mantra defeats its purpose (which is to allow it to be readily introduced into decisions).

Your goals and deliverables should probably come in the form of light-weight working groups... like "Whitepaper Working Group" or more specifically "write a white paper analysing the benefit of migrating a typical large messaging solution to the cloud". These could appear and dissolve as necessary with consensus (avoiding the usual slow charter/approval process) and then wander off to the wiki until it's time to present deliverables.

It just took me 5 minutes to create the Working Groups page and procedure:

Procedure

The procedure for creating a (lightweight) working group is as follows:

1. Create the working group page with charter (from the sample below or an existing group)
2. Add it to the "Proposed" section below
3. Post the charter to the list
   
   • Move to "Accepted" section below if consensus is reached and get to work
   • Move to "Rejected" if consensus fails
4. Announce deliverables on the list for acceptance
5. Move to "Archived" if consensus is reached (back to work otherwise, or rejected)

Sample Charter

Working Group Name: Whitepaper Working Group

Description: Develop a number of whitepapers comparing the costs of cloud computing with legacy solutions.

Members:

1. John Citizen (Acme)
2. Amy Rogers (Widgets Inc)

Inputs:

1. Gartener Report: 64% of enterprises save money by moving to cloud

Deliverables:

1. Document: Use cases for cloud computing
2. Whitepaper: Typical savings from migrating a large messaging system to the cloud.

Working Groups

Proposed

• Whitepaper: Goat herding using the cloud

Accepted

Archived

Rejected

Sam