The Official CCIF Management Team Members

[Reuven Cohen]

I have received a few reports over the last couple days that a number of people have claimed involvement in the management or are speaking on behalf of the CCIF community who should not be. Although we appreciate your eagerness to help you are adding more confusion then assistance at this point. I would like to clearly state that the only people who are authorized to speak or act on behalf of the CCIF are myself, Reuven Cohen (CCIF Creator), Jesse Silver, Samuel Charrington or Dave Nielsen.

Further more, from this point forward mischaracterizing yourself as a CCIF manager, creator, instigator, moderator or organizer will be grounds for banishment from this group.

I hope you understand, we're in a particularly important time and these actions are not helping us.

Reuven Cohen
CCIF Instigator

[Alexis Richardson]

Well, I'm a moderator, for my sins.

a

[Reuven Cohen]

Oh yeah and Alexis Richardson is a moderator. Sorry dude.

r/c

--
--

Reuven Cohen
Founder & Chief Technologist, Enomaly Inc.
www.enomaly.com :: 416 848 6036 x 1
skype: ruv.net // aol: ruv6

blog > www.elasticvapor.com
-
Open Source Cloud Computing > www.enomaly.com

[Alexis Richardson]

Thanks Reuven.

I don't plan to play any active role beyond moderating on this list
alone, as I just don't have time.

[Reuven Cohen]

Alexis, We appreciate all your help over the last several months. It's amazing to see this thing we created starting to take off.

r/c

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

I don't really know what to say. I thought we were making some real
progress there...

geir

[Reuven Cohen]

We are making progress, and I'm still very excited about where we're taking this.

Btw, thanks for coming to the event today your comments were very insightful as always.

ruv

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

Thanks for having me. I was happy to come, but your note here is
really discouraging to me.

My first question was "authorized by whom?" My second question was
"how is this compatible with our drive to create an open community?"

I have lots more questions, but I think that the second one really
bothers me most right now. I'm sorry I'm not more articulate with my
views here on this.

Because of my past experiences, my ideal model for things like this is
a meritocracy. It's clear that the five (including Alexis) of you
have put a lot of work and energy into this, and thus from my POV have
earned, in ASF parlance, merit/karma. However, there are others that
also have put in lots of work and energy, and they too have earned
merit/karma, so the notion of declaring "sole proprietorship" by fiat
like this is problematic.

I guess I think that this is going to cause more harm than whatever
problem it was meant to fix, and we just don't need more friction
right now.

geir

[Alexis Richardson]

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Because of my past experiences, my ideal model for things like this is
> a meritocracy.  It's clear that the five (including Alexis) of you
> have put a lot of work and energy into this

Thanks Geir, but to be clear: I am only putting time in to moderating
this list. I am not involved in any CCIF activity other than that.
If there is a 5th cylon, it isn't me ;-)

I am involved in an interface-specific effort called OCCI which has
the goal of coming up with a standard 'common' API for cloud
(specifically focussing on IaaS). This is consistent with and
supportive of most of the goals that I have seen the community propose
for CCIF, but it is a separate activity.

alexis

[Reuven Cohen]

I think you raise a very good point. Up until we determine a governance model it is me who authorizes the moderation and management team. Going forward I am all for having an open source style meritocracy.

Please keep in mind when I started this community I was basically a lone voice. Somewhere along the lines something changed and the community has taken an ownership in CCIF. Something I fully support. But like it or not I created the group. I've stated several times that I am completely open to giving up control to a fair and balanced organization structure.

So let me put it this way, what would you like too see happen? I'm open to suggestions.

Ruv

[Sam Johnston]

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:

I guess I think that this is going to cause more harm than whatever
problem it was meant to fix, and we just don't need more friction
right now.

That about sums it up - perhaps @ruv could elaborate on what damage has been caused?

Sam

[Sam Johnston]

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com> wrote:

Alexis, We appreciate all your help over the last several months. It's amazing to see this thing we created starting to take off.

@Alexis: I thought you were one of the founders, or was that just CloudCamp?

@Power Ranger Reuven: I wouldn't be counting my chickens with rubbish like this. To the casual observer it could appear that you are directing your tirade at me, so kindly confirm that is not the case, give specific example(s) or retract your statement.

If you're talking about any of the countless calls I've made this week trying to hold all this circus together while you're running around burning bridges left right and center then you're sadly mistaken - I've always been refreshingly transparent about my position. And if you're talking about the free C&D I sent to T®ollSEMPy™ which resulted in the instantaneous removal of CCIF from his scam^H^H^H^Hsite, saving "your" franchise untold damage then I don't know what to say really.

It's also extremely disingenuous to claim that you're the "Official Instigator" until you're elected - did you run this by your fellow Power Rangers or is this yet another @ruv "shoot from the hip" unmoment? I'm surprised you haven't had someone propose a vote of no confidence yet... I guess most people just ignore CCIF or leave, but there's an increasingly large contingent who won't touch it while you're at the helm.

Thanks for clarifying,

Sam

[Sam Johnston]

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:51 AM, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com> wrote:

I think you raise a very good point. Up until we determine a governance model it is me who authorizes the moderation and management team. Going forward I am all for having an open source style meritocracy.

We have what is essentially the committee model I've been pushing and it's working quite well; when one person's a tool there's enough others to step in, threaten to quit, etc. that sanity prevails. Usually.
 

Please keep in mind when I started this community I was basically a lone voice. Somewhere along the lines something changed and the community has taken an ownership in CCIF. Something I fully support. But like it or not I created the group. I've stated several times that I am completely open to giving up control to a fair and balanced organization structure.

Let's get one thing straight here about your "instigation". Just like last year with the cloud-computing group, you filled a void and given most people are sensible enough to resist forking at all costs the thing grew. Yes you've worked hard and evangelised and so on, but if you didn't someone else would have. One could say similar things about open source software like Enomaly ECP, but that's OT.
 

So let me put it this way, what would you like too see happen? I'm open to suggestions.

I'd personally suggest you seriously consider letting either Dave or Sam take over the reigns in the interim or (and I'm serious here) self-moderate to get second opinions from cooler heads. I don't know Sam but I spoke to Dave yesterday and he sounds extremely level headed, if very busy making CloudCamp the success that it is. Nothing personal but in the interests of CCIF it could be a good option.

Sam
 

[Peter Lefkin]

---

From: cloud...@googlegroups.com
To: cloud...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu Apr 02 18:59:02 2009
Subject: Re: The Official CCIF Management Team Members

[Alexis Richardson]

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Sam Johnston <sa...@samj.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com> wrote:
>>
>> Alexis, We appreciate all your help over the last several months. It's
>> amazing to see this thing we created starting to take off.
>
> @Alexis: I thought you were one of the founders, or was that just CloudCamp?

I am not a founder of CCIF or anything like that. I and others were
involved in putting CloudCamp together with most of my focus being on
the London event.

[Jeremy Day]

Reuven,

Okay, I have to confess that I'm confused.  One day you're saying that we need to have a radically open group, so much so that we can't ban a highly disruptive troll, and the next day your appointing yourself and others essentially dictators of the group?

So let me put it this way, what would you like too see happen? I'm open to suggestions.

I'd say either it's an open group or it's not.  If it is not an open group than you can continue being the chairman, president, instigator, or whatever other leader title you want and people will trickle slowly away from what could have been a great thing.  Or, on the flip side, we vote on the leaders or the people that we want to speak for us in some sort of open fashion.  I think that Geir mentioned some sort of meritocracy, which I think can make a lot of sense.  You guys have done a lot of hard work and deserve some credit, so why not set up some sort of karma system wherein the people who positively contribute to the group get more power.  Don't claim one day that we need to be completely open and then the next that we're not actually completely open.

Jeremy

[Eric Windisch]

>
> I'd say either it's an open group or it's not. If it is not an open
> group than you can continue being the chairman, president,
> instigator, or whatever other leader title you want and people will
> trickle slowly away from what could have been a great thing. Or, on
> the flip side, we vote on the leaders or the people that we want to
> speak for us in some sort of open fashion. I think that Geir
> mentioned some sort of meritocracy, which I think can make a lot of
> sense. You guys have done a lot of hard work and deserve some
> credit, so why not set up some sort of karma system wherein the
> people who positively contribute to the group get more power. Don't
> claim one day that we need to be completely open and then the next
> that we're not actually completely open.

I think there is too much unnecessary drama going on. Those of us in
the open source crowd have already seen enough of this sort of in-
fighting on LKML and lists.freebsd.org.

My understanding from the meeting is that there will be a governance
agreed upon and the word "meritocracy" was thrown around quite a bit.
I don't really want to discuss what Ruv is doing or has been doing,
only what will happen once we decide on a governance.

So a question for the current "management team" as someone that didn't
attend the governance sessions and haven't gotten more information
than was available during the unpanel and during the interop
sessions... What is the time-table that we're looking at for the
governance? Are we looking at April 15th or so for a community review
of the plan?

--
Eric Windisch

--
Eric Windisch

[groupalias v]

Ok. Its understood that Ruv does not want to let go of the reins, what ever the reins are since this is supposed to be an open group. Frankly Ruv since you started the group over six months ago, we have not even decided what the goal of the group is.

I think we should decide on what the group will do within a fixed time ( may be April 15 like Eric suggested) and then the leader ship will be sorted out automatically as different people will want to contribute in a different fashion.

[Eric Windisch]

>
> I think we should decide on what the group will do within a fixed
> time ( may be April 15 like Eric suggested) and then the leader ship
> will be sorted out automatically as different people will want to
> contribute in a different fashion.

Before discussing any drastic meaures, lets not immediately forfeit
any of the (presumably) great work that was done today on
Wallstreet. If we can learn, at a minimum, what the general outcome
of the governance discussions was and what time schedules we're
looking at, I think it will alleviate many of the fears and concerns
that are being expressed here. If the governance sessions went
anything like the interop sessions, I'm sure that some sort of
communication to the community is already in the works.

I personally understand that it might take days or weeks to have such
information available as the governance session has a much more
difficult and dangerous landscape over which it must traverse. There
are legal issues and concerns, for sure. However, it would do very
much for this community to see an immediate confirmation that this
will be eventually provided, and a rough timeline for when further
information will be provided to the general open community. Again,
while I was in attendance today, I regrettably had little to no
involvement in the governance sessions and cannot provide these
answers myself.

Since I've now mentioned it, not to derail this thread too far, I just
want to casually note that the interop session did decide on a couple
action items which will be presented to the community in the next
couple days -- in what should be an open and fair manner.

--
Eric Windisch

[Jesse L Silver]

sending this from my phone so shall be brief:

yes we reached a tentative timeline in government session, we should
post more info early next week. I and others need to sleep for a few
days before we write up the sessions contents.

thanks, J

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

[Jesse L Silver]

+1 for the most part

[Gary Mazz]

Well, for some public exposure, Ruv asked me to be a moderator as well.
So I'm guilty.

Every organization has a core group of visionaries. Like companies,
sometimes as organizations grows the "startup" management team may not
necessarily be the same team as the organization matures. There has been
complaints about missions, roles, direction from members of this list,
some individual's statements are in conflict with each other (mine
included).

When Ruv started this group, there was a mission statement, there still
is. Some many want to consider reading it. Here:
http://www.cloudforum.org/about/

If these are not your expectations and aligns with you personal or
companies' goals, you may want to reconsider participation. This group
seems to have gone off on a tangent determining what the mission's
actions and deliverables should be. Many ideas were bantered about,
including becoming a standards body. Some agreed, some didn't, some
sponsors privately attempted actions that, in my opinions, equates to
hijacking the efforts.

I think the current team has done good job in the face an onslaught
hostile and conflicting messages from the community. In my opinion, some
are attacks are no more than attempts at anarchy.

Second, the ccif is not an organization, there is no legal structure,
there is no board, there is no operational infrastructure. There is only
the efforts of four core individuals that enlisted a few other
individuals with helping maintain a little sanity in this list. And,
organize a space where the community can meet for a few days.

Some complain there is no formal organization, while others protest the
idea of having a legal structure. Ideas and investigations were made
into annexing this group by another, well established organization.
Again, some agreed, while other did not agree. I believe, some in
disagreement took that position because their companies' weren't driving
it.. Political positioning and the mind share "land grab" exhibited by
some members of this group, is not only embarrassing but is detrimental
and damaging to the cloud end user and vendor communities.

Manifesto-gate: this was a mistake made by the current team, I wasn't
happy with the way it was done. I'm also not happy with the proposed
Cloud Bill of Rights. Why, because both documents were done without the
sanctioning of the community. If this was to be a community generated
document, it should not written by one or more individuals privately.
Unless, the community sanctions the authors and the document does not
place language preventing public endorsement by companies. I'm not sure
what is worse, a document produced by 4 guys that would like to see this
industry and market succeed or one individual that would like to see
this industry and market succeed. I do not believe that any of the
documents produced were deliberately defraud the community, I believe
both document written with the best interest of the community in mind,
after the NYC meeting, I am sure of it

There are many here on this list that are earnest and would like to see
the market and industry and succeed. I feel, the political jockeying,
land grabs and destructive messaging is disrespectful to the
participants that would like to see this effort succeed.

I'm happy with the current individuals that are taking their personal
time to organize these events. They are not professional or corporate
politicians. They have made a few mistakes, nothing overwhelming or with
malicious intent. We, that have the experience in these areas are
partially at fault, we have not fostered an environment where others can
feel comfortable doing works and proposing actions without the feeling
they will be attacked, both publicly and privately. We have also not
done anything to protect ourselves from bullying by sponsors. Don't look
at the Ruv, Sam, Dave and Jesse to address these issues, look in the mirror.

Read the mission statement, read the notes from the NYC meetings.
Participate, add, comment. If you feel the direction of the group
doesn't align with your world view, remember, you can change the channel.

cheers,
Gary Mazzaferro

[Dave Nielsen]

[from my seat on a plane the runway]

Adding to Jesses note. While we will compile the collective notes from
the Gov meeting and send out on Monday, it is unlikely that we will
complete the org docs by the 15th. There are simply too many POVs to
consider (including those in this forum) and we want to do this right,
not fast. So please be patient.
Best,
-Dave

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

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

[from the flat bench at the gym]

Wasn't it 2 hours of governance breakouts? How long can the damn note
take?

Write them on the plane. You'll have at least 4 hours.

Geir

[Jeremy Day]

Why not put the notes in their rough state on a wiki (or some other sort of collaborative forum) and let the community work on it.  Or post it, let the community comment, and then after a day do a revision.  Then do another revision, and another.  Chances are you're never going to please everyone, so why not iterate through it and try to find the best option in an organic, community driven way?  It sounds like you're looking to write the document using a waterfall approach, and I'm suggesting perhaps a more agile approach.

Jeremy

[Alexis Richardson]

+1

May I suggest Sam's wiki.

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

+1

Was just thinking this.  I'll be sending my notes to the list.

[Jesse L Silver]

Hey Geir - Good idea to post your view of the meeting, but please do not send your notes to this list. We are going to move the governance discussion onto a new list (cloudforum-org), so that this list can get back to discussing cloud computing.

Please join cloudforum-org on google groups if you'd like to discuss governance and organizational details.

Also, on the "how long can the damn note take" question: c'mon man. I want to get something well formed on the list so that we have a real place to start. My brain is literally mush right now, can we be patient?

[Alexis Richardson]

Shoot me down if I've missed something, but this was an open meeting, right?

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

Um.

I think wiki's are great for organizing information, but I think that
they are terrible for conversation about a subject. I'd prefer that
we keep the convo here, so it remains in the archive and collective
memory, and then use the wiki for interim results and a final thingy,
whatever that thingy is.

My $0.02

geir

[Jesse L Silver]

obviously.

[Jesse L Silver]

Agreed, but on the cloudforum-org - I think it's a good idea for us to separate this from the rest of the list, and I think you agreed too in yesterday's meeting (if you were there at that point).

[Alexis Richardson]

well then you can't stop people writing it up, and may compromise
yourself if you try

[Alexis Richardson]

why more lists? isn't the constitution of this group exactly what it
agreed to discuss?

[Jesse L Silver]

Did you even read my comment Alex?

"Good idea to post your view of the meeting"

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On Apr 3, 2009, at 12:10 PM, Jesse L Silver wrote:

> Hey Geir - Good idea to post your view of the meeting, but please do
> not send your notes to this list. We are going to move the
> governance discussion onto a new list (cloudforum-org), so that this
> list can get back to discussing cloud computing.

Oh, come on. Lets make that decision HERE, since HERE is where the
community is, not THERE or wherever that decision was made.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as abrasive on this, but I'm really
getting frustrated. Nothing of real value happens on this list, so
the governance discussion - for which everyone HERE is a stakeholder -
won't get in the way of anything important. I promise.

>
> Please join cloudforum-org on google groups if you'd like to discuss
> governance and organizational details.

Please lets discuss this HERE.

>
> Also, on the "how long can the damn note take" question: c'mon man.
> I want to get something well formed on the list so that we have a
> real place to start. My brain is literally mush right now, can we be
> patient?

It's been 24 hours since the first governance meeting broke up for
lunch. I was in there for only half an hour, and I really thought it
was productive, and now that the notes are going to be word-smithed
over a weekend, I'm really sorry I had to leave early and missed the
second one.

I'll summarize what I think happened HERE in a few min after I get
some lunch.

Love,

geir

[Alexis Richardson]

Apologies, I did misread your post. I fixed on the 'do not post here'
and missed the 'good idea to post your view' bit.

I think Geir said it better, and they are his notes...

[Jesse L Silver]

Geir, your call on where to post, obviously, but I've run this idea by a number of people and haven't gotten any pushback until now. Not saying it's not worth discussion further:

I think we do need to start splitting up the conversation so people aren't inundated with conversations that they don't care about. Notice that only 6 people out of 75 came to the governance session.

What do others think? Is it a good idea to move the discussion to a separate but equally open list.

[Jeremy Day]

I think that discussions on the governance of CCIF (That is what we're talking about, right?) should stay on the CCIF list.  If people aren't interested they can ignore the thread.  I don't know about the other folks here, but I'm already a member of so many cloud computing groups that it makes my head spin.

Jeremy

[Jesse L Silver]

It is still a CCIF list - as the CCIF grows there will have to be multiple lists - just a fact of community life, IMO.

If it's too early to split the lists, then that's a legitimate argument. But eventually we must being breaking things out, and I think that time is now.

[Alejandro Espinoza]

Guys,

I'm completely sick of this. There is no possible way this is OPEN. And it will never be. All I'm seeing is attempts to fully control the group in the direction a few decide. And I'm sorry, but this is way too much for me and I don't intend to spend more time here. My time is valuable and this is a waste of time.

This group had an specific focus, and now it is lost. It is clear to me that this group will never reach its objectives and it is very likely that a fork will be created soon that will take matters in the correct and open way.

When that group is created, please invite me. For now. I am gone.

Regards,
Alex.

--
Alex Espinoza | Axis Technical Group | Software Development Manager
714-491-2636 office | 714-470-7125 cell | aesp...@axistechnical.com | www.axistechnical.com

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).

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

start a new thread on this topic, please.

geir

[Jonathan Lambert]

I have to say, "Yes."  Resoundingly.

Governance and structure conversations tend to suck up a lot of organizational time and detract from our end-result purposes.  However, they are necessary for things like Intellectual Property assurances, etc.

Pros (split)

-----

A very small subset of the community cares about these issues.  They care a lot, they talk a lot, but again, only a small number care.

When governance is set up, the list can continue to be used for ongoing organizational management.  That doesn't belong on this list.

This list will continue to grow in volume, and reducing extraneous noise for the now more than 800 subscribers should be a top priority - keep on topic.  It's going to take a long time to work out all the Governance issues, and it will lead to some spirited debate.  It's more of a working group, so let's let the working group work (without inflicting it on our increasingly growing community).  I don't know about you, but *I* don't want to receive all that email.

The smaller group would suggest better first-name, material dialogue.

It would take a lot of the "we hate the leaders, we love the leaders" threads off the main discussion list.  This would personally make me very happy.

Cons

-----

You have to have another email address to talk about it.

The list may not be effective, because of the fit of people on it, in which case we'd have to make some adjustments to our approach.

That's a lot more pros than cons.  I personally can't strongly advise avoiding having that discussion in the arena of the work or the public forum. 

My suggestion: split the list.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Lambert
ceo  |  workhabit,inc.

// email: j...@workhabit.com  |  web: http://www.workhabit.com
// office: 866-workhabit  |  direct: 415-376-9799  |  fax: 919-552-9690

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this electronic mail message is confidential and intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may be privileged. The information herein may also be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 UCS Sections 2510-2521. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (866-967-5422) and by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

[Fred Zappert]

I too would like to see a new thread started,  but I'm not sure of which title to use.

Can someone help me here? 

I'm trying to decide between "shell game" and "bait and switch" because it feels like there are elements of both.

Perhaps I am being unfair, because it might merit it's own brand new name, suitable for entry in the Wikipedia.

[Bechauf, Michael]

In order to move the discussion forward, I'm going to quickly recap what was discussed in the governance meeting yesterday which I attended. This was an open meeting, and everybody who attended the NYC event was invited to join.

 

I was unfortunately not able to send emails yesterday for technical reasons, but *fortunately* this also meant that I had a cool-off period. Let me just say that in light of the history of events, an email like the one sent by Reuven yesterday does not serve a good purpose. A statement that somebody is not authorized to speak up in an open forum would be problematic for a company, let alone in a group of volunteers who get no compensation whatsoever for their work.

 

I do appreciate that everybody is busy. I am too, and am writing up this summary while I'm listing on a conference call in parallel and 20 minutes before a conference call with the Executive VP of our business unit. I think everybody will appreciate that things take a little while, but then there was obviously time to send the message below which in light of the fact that we have worked hard yesterday to increase transparency is just not helpful at all.

 

It is not my place to criticize publicly, but if in fact the people named below will operate as the "management team" (whatever that exactly means in the future organization) then I strongly suggest you synchronize your actions better with each other. Such message *may* have been appropriate under certain circumstances, but to send this message when there was on the other side no time to even update the list on some of the governance, standards and marketing discussions that happened in NYC is not helpful. I'm repeating myself, but I believe you get my point.

 

Finally, here is a rough sketch of what was talked about in the governance meeting:

 

Very early in the NYC meeting, we had several comments from the audience about the respect for the value of intellectual property. There was no disagreement, and however the organization would be structured, it needed to be a safe place to speak up and disclose content, no matter if by an individual or a representative of a company. As such, the "mission statement" that was disclosed at NYC needed to be refined as it made ambiguous references to the use of patents that could easily be misunderstood.

 

Going into the governance discussion, we therefore exchanged views what the likely material would be that would be exchanged. If the organization would develop material that would later be implemented in a product, clear intellectual property rights rules were absolutely important. This is independent of the fact whether this meant developing new standards (which at this point I believe everybody is extremely hesitant of), or profile/clarify existing standards in a model similar to a Special Interest Group (SIG).

 

If, however, the organization were to develop mostly best practices or marketing material, a simpler document that only clarified copyright ownership was sufficient.

 

We made the comparison to the SOA world, were even though a group like WS-I does not develop new standards, but profiles existing standards and therefore needed intellectual property rules (you can look them up on the Website [1]). If, however, an organization like SOA Alliance was the role model which is a customer advocacy group, then clarification of copyrights may be sufficient.

 

We had agreement among ourselves, that the primary audience for the new organization needed to be customers, even though vendor participation would be encouraged. We wanted to manage the balance between on the one side following a formal process for developing documents, while at the same time learning from open source and social media. More about this below.

 

In terms of clarifying what best practices, case studies, guidelines etc meant, we took the action item to look at the SOA Alliance materials. We have not completed this action item, but everybody can look it up yourselves at [2].

 

In terms of moving to a separate list, we all expressed our strong feelings that we needed to follow an approach where a relatively small group of people discussed the new governance structure. This does not mean that anybody will be excluded - everybody is welcome to join and listen. However, in terms of finalizing the documents we believe that we needed to follow the open source model where there is some sort of "module leader" who gets elected by the merits of his/her contributions, and that all contributors were expected to keep up a high level of commitment to the project.

 

We discussed that the meriocratic model works well in the open source group because the contributions of the committers are expressed by the quality of their code. However, in social media and Wikis anybody can make contributions and this means that in a large group of contributors this would mean that it may take a long time before a document has been finalized. This may be an issue for the new organization in general, but we all agreed that it would definitely be an issue for developing governance documents which needed to converged in a very short amount of time. We therefore expressed the need that all contributors on the separate governance list must be making a commitment to uphold high quality contributions and strong time commitment. Essentially, if you want to participate, you are expected to deliver similar to the level of quality that open source committers need to deliver.

 

While this self-governance is the way we thought to organize the governance list, this is probably not a scaleable model for the whole organization. We therefore discussed whether we would learn from the Twitter model where the number of followers is a way to measure social "equity" which could roughly be seen as equivalent to the quality level an open source committer needs to uphold.

 

I'm sure there are other aspects that I missed, so this should not replace more complete minutes of the meeting which will be produced later. However, I believe it should be sufficient at this point to provide the clarity and transparency that the community requires at this junction.

 

Best,

Michael

 

[1] http://www.ws-i.org/join/memberform.aspx

[2] http://www.soaalliance.org/

 

---

From: cloud...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cloud...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Reuven Cohen
Sent: Thursday, Apr 02, 2009 2:57 PM
To: cloud...@googlegroups.com
Subject: The Official CCIF Management Team Members

[George Reese]

#1 I totally dislike Reuven's tone. He needs to chill out.

#2 I agree with everything Geir says. I don't think we need a new
forum for every single topic of conversation. That's what threads or
for. Maybe Geir's notes should be posted in a different thread. Maybe.
But we don't need 10 million forums. I despise the hell out of Google
Groups. Bring me back USENET.

On 3 avr, 11:30, Jesse L Silver <silverg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Geir, your call on where to post, obviously, but I've run this idea by a
> number of people and haven't gotten any pushback until now. Not saying it's
> not worth discussion further:
>
> I think we do need to start splitting up the conversation so people aren't
> inundated with conversations that they don't care about. Notice that only 6
> people out of 75 came to the governance session.
>
> What do others think? Is it a good idea to move the discussion to a separate
> but equally open list.
>

> > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <g...@pobox.com>

> > > wrote:
> > > +1
>
> > > Was just thinking this.  I'll be sending my notes to the list.
>

> > > On Apr 3, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Jeremy Day <jeremy....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Why not put the notes in their rough state on a wiki (or some other
> > >> sort of collaborative forum) and let the community work on it.  Or
> > >> post it, let the community comment, and then after a day do a
> > >> revision.  Then do another revision, and another.  Chances are
> > >> you're never going to please everyone, so why not iterate through
> > >> it and try to find the best option in an organic, community driven
> > >> way?  It sounds like you're looking to write the document using a
> > >> waterfall approach, and I'm suggesting perhaps a more agile approach.
>
> > >> Jeremy
>
> > >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr.
> > >> <g...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > >> [from the flat bench at the gym]
>
> > >> Wasn't it 2 hours of governance breakouts?  How long can the damn
> > >> note
> > >> take?
>
> > >> Write them on the plane.  You'll have at least 4 hours.
>
> > >> Geir
>

> > >> On Apr 3, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Dave Nielsen <dniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > [from my seat on a plane the runway]
>
> > >> > Adding to Jesses note. While we will compile the collective notes
> > >> from
> > >> > the Gov meeting and send out on Monday, it is unlikely that we will
> > >> > complete the org docs by the 15th. There are simply too many POVs
> > >> to
> > >> > consider (including those in this forum) and we want to do this
> > >> right,
> > >> > not fast. So please be patient.
> > >> > Best,
> > >> > -Dave
>

> > >> > On 4/2/09, Jesse L Silver <silverg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> sending this from my phone so shall be brief:
>
> > >> >> yes we reached a tentative timeline in government session, we
> > >> should
> > >> >> post more info early next week. I and others need to sleep for a
> > >> few
> > >> >> days before we write up the sessions contents.
>
> > >> >> thanks, J
>

[Botchagalupe]

I love the "Cloud" and I love to hear anything related to cloud
computing. However; I decided to stop going to the original cloud
computing google group because I thought it had turned into a
schoolyard playground. People trying to one up each other and
arguments all over the place. I would really hate to leave this group
given the seriousness and possibilities of what can be achieved here.

For what it is worth (maybe nothing), everyone on this forum is a
though leader in cloud computing and you are some of the most
interesting commentators in the cloud discussion. I really hope you/
we can get this act together and have this forum focus on moving
forward and not backwards.

my .02 cents

John
johnmwillis.com

[Bechauf, Michael]

I think people are overlooking that there are two different aspects here:

1 - Mail volume; sure, let's play it by ear. I think people will get very tired of seeing emails with redlined attachments fly by, but perhaps a filter will take care of this.

2 - Rules of engagement: There can only be a few people fully engaged in this topic. If anybody here believes that you can write these agreements in a committee of 800 people, let me tell you that I don't know anybody who has attempted that and be done in a few weeks. I for my part will not get engaged if we have to build consensus between a large number of people who once in a while provide comments. Either you stay fully engaged, and earn your right to be in the group, or you rely on those who drive it.

Best,
Michael

[afalcon]

For a group if really smart people, I am amazed at how much of the
discussion sounds like a bunch of 5 year-old kids arguing about who is
in charge of the sandbox.

First we hear of a "new open future" for CCIF, followed shortly by an
Al Haig style "Don't Worry, I am in Charge" declaration. Now, the
discussion about the structure of governance has degraded into a
lengthy argument about whether the governance discussion deserves a
separate thread, list, or group. Give me a break!

If the "leaders" of this group were leading, the following would have
happened.

1) Everyone on the list would have been invited to the governance
meeting, not just those that could attend the other NYC meetings
(conference call bridging is free nowadays, I would have paid to
listen in remotely).

2) Before, during, or after the meeting, one "leader" could have
created a page within this group for Governance. Remember pages have
threaded discussions attached. A single post in one of the threads
could have let folks know that the page would be the location of the
notes from the meeting, once they were prepared (it is reasonable to
give folks a few days to produce a clear, concise memo), and the
discussion could follow off the page. Voila -- one forum that let's
individuals opt-in to the discussion.

3) When the notes are ready, the would be posted and a general
discussion thread item would alert the community that the opt-in page
was ready.

The initial founders of the group (thank you, by the way) showed
vision and leadership in getting things off the ground. They have
acknowledged some criticisms as valid and have recognized that
mistakes have been made. Great. We are all human and there are
always individual and community learning curves in these endeavors.

Moving forward, though, stop telling us that you are the leaders (and
threatening those that are trying to help -- even if they are critical
of you) and start acting like leaders.

CCIF has a mission. Live it.

Set expectations for the community and then meet them.

Don't hold a meeting or event without open invitations and an up-front
commitment as to when and where notes will be posted so the
conversation can continue.

Accept help from others -- members of the group have created Wikis and
CMS systems to assist

Start grooming your successors ... whether it happens next month or in
a decade, it is going to happen and members that want to help lead
need a path

With a little more thought, the noise level of the discussion will
diminish and the members will be back focusing on Cloud Computing
Interoperability.

My $0.02 worth.
Allen

[Pablo Serber]

 Allen, could not agree more with you. I am thinking on leaving this group, just because I have not seen one real interoperability discussion (or action, actually). 

And I have the same feeling, a complete lack of real leadership. too much personal interest of some 'self-defined' CCIF managers. but you know, I am nobody here, just a member.

@Ruv, I really liked your 'unified' cloud computing presentation @NYC (and your arguments on the cloudcamp about the different APIs and what you are doing with enomaly about integration). I want to see more of that here, and I think the others members also want the same of this mailing list. If you are the leader, please lead o give others the space to do so.

If anyone here wants to discuss anything related to Cloud computing, I am in.

Cheers.

Pablo 

[Eric Windisch]

On Apr 3, 2009, at 9:01 PM, Pablo Serber wrote:

> Allen, could not agree more with you. I am thinking on leaving this
> group, just because I have not seen one real interoperability
> discussion (or action, actually).

Pablo,

There was some discussion and work done at the NYC meeting on
interoperability which should be further detailed and discussed in the
coming days. I will be kick-starting one of these discussions in the
next few days and hope that this will be an important step towards
standards (to be produced by other organizations). For my part, I'm
planning to kick-start discussions on my "action item" on Wednesday.

I suggest that everyone hold tight for the time being to see where the
CCIF is going. It has only been a day since the New York meeting and
it will take a bit of time for those tasked with kick-starting
community discussion to catch up after a busy week. I'm sure that
more than a few present this week are now catching up with work,
sleep, and emails before preparing for the community discussions to
come.

--
Eric Windisch

[JP Morgenthal]

Pablo, +1.

I am looking to build use cases for the Cloud and Cloud interop and
looking to facilitate agreement on a Cloud dictionary.

I asked Sam Johnston asking him if he was aware of a generic forum for
these types of discussions and he recommended
http://groups.google.com/group/cloudcomputing

I'm going to get a few discussions on these issues going there.

If anyone want to do something besides bitch about who did what do who
and who is a Cloud god and who isn't, feel free to join me over at
http://groups.google.com/group/cloudcomputing to start to formulate
and aggregate some real knowledge about Cloud computing.

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