A call for open community consensus...

[Sam Johnston]

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 4:24 AM, ewindisch <er...@grokthis.net> wrote:

While I'm not happy with
the way it was presented or produced, and I am still waiting to see
what happens Monday, but if this is taken to a vote on Thursday and
ratified by the members of the CCIF, I won't be terribly disturbed by
it, and think that it will be a good *step* towards making real
progress.

As sombody who has just lived through the last 8 years in the US and is now faced with the prospect of living through the next 8 I am surprised that you would be so quick to suggest that a vote is a useful mechanism here.

Voting on standards has always been problematic and always will be - voting on pre-cooked documents is even worse. Given the sordid history of this version of the manifesto I would encourage anyone given the opportunity to vote on it (that being an elite subset of this group able to travel to NY) should reject it on principle, and anyone thinking to propose it for a vote should reconsider given it just drives home how hypocritical this whole farce has been and makes us look like a pack of lame sheep. This is particularly pertinent given it will be an open ballot and those expressing their discomfort with the process are being branded "unhelpful" naysayers by those on the A-list. Many of those voting won't even be from this group anyway.

It's a shame that our illustrious leader(s) was dragged into this, and dragged the rest of us into it with them through various actions and inactions, but what's done is done. It's also a shame it wasn't handled differently, for example by opening the document up immediately on disclosure rather than trying to preempt a pre-announcement with a pre-pre-announcement (thus dragging us in further, as evidenced by Slashdot article above).

A few hours ago I threw open for discussion some rough design notes for the Open Cloud Computing Interface (OCCI). Those who don't grok wikis can discuss on the archives but those who do are welcome to roll up their sleeves and make changes, or propose them for discussion and building of community consensus on the talk page. This gives everyone a place at the table, promotes the best ideas to the surface and rapidly boils off puffery and other noise (which is the primary ingredient in the rambling monologue that we've just been force fed). Particularly stubborn stains are tagged with appropriate templates like {{peacock}} which states:

This article may contain wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. Please remove or replace such wording or find sources which back the claims.

By all means stick around and see who's still game to put their name on this garbage on Monday (I'd say that list has thinned out substantially, and I wonder if IBM's name is even still on it) but it wasn't without good reason that Microsoft specified that they "feel strongly that any 'manifesto' should be created, from its inception, through an open mechanism like a Wiki, for public debate and comment, all available through a Creative Commons license".

That's what we've done here with input from Microsoft, the Mozilla Manifesto, myself and some other random sources, and I personally think the result is much cleaner (both structurally and from an "untainted" point of view), more useful and has more teeth than the wishy washy pronouncement ironically branded the "Open Cloud Manifesto".

I personally think it's high time for a "reboot" of the CCIF; a revolution of sorts (and the cloud computing community in general for that matter). Having found my work summarily deleted and myself promptly banned from this group for responding to Microsoft's call in creating the rival document (albeit briefly given one of the moderators immediately threatened to quit his post over it) I wonder whether this particular group is beyond repair but I guess that will be seen in the coming days/weeks.

I am particularly disconcerted given that one of the insiders (to remain nameless) has asked me a number of times by phone and email to publish a retraction/correction regarding my role in the process, for my own benefit of course: "I think it's in your best interests to publicly state you are not the author of the manifesto. Can you do that on cloudforum and cloud-computing?".

Ironically I'm still banned from the latter group 6 months later (along with other bloggers including Geva Perry and James Urquhart) over my post announcing the first (open source no less) cloud computing shell (cush), though unsurprisingly I still have a problem with moderation/censorship and the associated power grab.

Accordingly I've given them their "correction" in the creation of Wikipedia's Cloud Computing Manifesto article, where the real story is both open (anyone can edit) and subject to Wikipedia's unrelenting BS filter.

Anyway here's what another Microsoft director had to say in reference to the Cloud Computing Manifesto in his followup post "An Open Cloud Requires an Equally Open Manifesto":

Sam Johnston did what I would expect from the community.  No bitching.  No whining.  He set up a wiki for an open cloud manifesto and said, let’s get this thing started.  Awesome.  Better yet, people are already writing to it.  If you read this post and are even remotely interested in cloud computing, go check it out, and contribute.  Please.  We think that it’s great to have a discussion, in the open, where everyone, no matter what size you company, can speak and be listened to.

It will be interesting to see which direction the community takes from here - the open road or the well trodden path of politics, invite-only boys clubs, votestacking and "back room cigar-smoke-filled scam[s] of the good old days". I guess that will become clear this week, but I urge those of you still reading this diatribe not to take this assault lying down as I'm afraid it's just the tip of the iceberg.

Sam

[gary mazzaferro]

I tend to agree with most of Sam's points on this issue in principle.

 

First, this group has shifted its focus from a technical group to a cloud advocacy group. IMHO, the technical efforts and standardization efforts have been force out of CCIF by some of the "sponsors". Now, this group is viewed as a community endorsement platform for the sponsors. Which is viewed by some as enabling your competitors.

 

If there is a commitment to members, that actions and works by other members will be acted on transparently, the commitment should be upheld, else jeopardizing trust of the membership and credibility of the group. 

 

If this Manifesto effort was announced, where the contributors and editor(s) were disclosed, I wouldn't have objected with the "way" the Manifesto was created. But it wasn't. I also don't find the secrecy catastrophic to the community, just disappointing.

 

My real concern was the secret announcement plan, which can significantly impact the perception of stealth start ups and small operating businesses to the customer community. Maybe I'm just being hyper-sensitive from having it happen to me before. Apologies  to all, if that is the case.

 

I don't agree the Manifesto is ready for ratification, but can serve as a "feel good" document and show the customer community progress is being made..

 

In this forum, there are clearly two different agendas, a social marketing effort and a technical effort. I think Ruv was clear in an email to the group (a few weeks ago?) that a technical agenda is out of scope for this initiative, shifting the efforts to advocacy (what else is left ?).

 

I'll continue participating here, and try to voice my opinions in a balanced tone and perspective. I'll participate in the CCIF for what it is, an advocacy group until there is a new direction, then as everyone else, reevaluate participating.  

 

On the technical front, I'll be looking for a new home. There are many options out there, some infringe on known patents, others don't, some are so rudimentary I'd expect better from secondary school students. I'll participate in a body that is not technically embarrassing (and feel I have to charge technical consulting fees) and has the closest alignment to my goals. I doubt, today, there is a good enough reason to "go renegade" and form a new group for annexation..

 

Just as a comment on the Manifesto, I don't find anything in it offensive, biased, disruptive or binding. Its a set of consumer focused prinicpals based in fair use, that is all it is.  I don't believe it was intended to be much more.

 

cheers,

 

Gary Mazzaferro

yes, still in stealth mode