NYC Update & Minutes of informal meeting in NYC, March 30, 2009

[Reuven Cohen]

Yesterday representatives of CCIF, CloudCamp, Cisco, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, and the IEEE-ISTO met while attending the Cloud Computing Expo in New York. Other companies were invited but were unable to attend, generally due to the short notice. The companies agreed on a shared goal to promote use and awareness of open and interoperable cloud computing. The group brainstormed several ideas including the possibility to build on the momentum created by CloudCamp. Another topic was the ability to enable participants, from individuals and companies, both large and small, to be able to contribute to and use the results of broad community collaboration. Additionally, the possibility of a trade association or marketing association for cloud computing was discussed but no specific actions were agreed. The final topic was the need to have broader participation from the community in this discussion.

Next Steps

I have been invited to give a keynote speech tomorrow morning at the Cloud Computing Expo in New York. At this time, I will publicly ask for the support of the greater community in the creation of a completely new kind of cloud computing trade association. This organization will be focused on the marketing and advancement of cloud computing industry, a goal we all share. This organization must focus on bringing together all the various industry participants in a truly open and collaborative environment. The cloud community as well as companies big or small will have a voice. What I am asking for is not just another trade association but the opportunity to re-imagine how we, the cloud community can jointly co-operate to advance the over all market opportunity for cloud computing through a neutral yet formalized and legal organization.

My question to you the cloud community is how should this new kind of community centric trade association look? Your comments and suggestions will form the basis of my keynote. The eyes of the technology world are upon on us, let's not miss the opportunity to enable a change for the better.

Thank you for your continuing support.

--
Reuven Cohen

[Sam Johnston]

Q.E.D.?

Reuven, I'm honestly having difficulty believing what I am reading - how is it even possible that you learnt nothing from the first round?

I want to be supportive - I really, really do, but how can I when it takes me 2 days to get hold of you for 5 minutes via GTalk only to have you tell me "things are moving fast, give me a bit". And now this? I don't know what to say except that I am extremely disappointed. To imply that this was the spontaneous result of that meeting when you've clearly been working on it since 2007 is disingenuous at best.

As a matter of interest, who will lead this "larger trade organization with a larger budget than CCIF should handle"? Will you be involved? Enomaly?

Where are the meeting minutes (per subject)? As someone represented at the meeting yesterday I want to know exactly what was said on my behalf and I doubt I'm the only one.

Sam

[Reuven Cohen]

Things are moving fast. I'll try my best to keep everyone in the loop.

Sys-con wanted me to mention that my presentation is not "keynote". I guess that's for sponsors of the event. Whatever you call it, if you're at the expo come by.

ruv

[adhi]

Hi !

Looks like you are back to your non-nonsensical behavior once again ?

Are we going to stick to our agenda or dance as per the wishes of the
established players ?

I do not think Reuven has not learnt anything at all ! His apology
has got no meaning.
This is preposterous ! I do not think it is spontaneous also. He is
again trying to maneuver and force his ideas through.

If this point is not clarified then time for me to get out of this
group.

Cheers

Varadarajan
Thinteknix

On Mar 31, 1:36 pm, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com> wrote:
> Things are moving fast. I'll try my best to keep everyone in the loop.
>
> Sys-con wanted me to mention that my presentation is not "keynote". I guess
> that's for sponsors of the event. Whatever you call it, if you're at the
> expo come by.
>
> ruv
>

> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Sam Johnston <s...@samj.net> wrote:
> > Q.E.D.<http://samj.net/2009/03/thinly-veiled-warning-to-ccif-committee.html>
> > ?

>
> > Reuven, I'm honestly having difficulty believing what I am reading - how is
> > it even possible that you learnt nothing from the first round?
>
> > I want to be supportive - I really, really do, but how can I when it takes
> > me 2 days to get hold of you for 5 minutes via GTalk only to have you tell
> > me "things are moving fast, give me a bit". And now this? I don't know what
> > to say except that I am extremely disappointed. To imply that this was the

> > spontaneous result of that meeting when you've clearly been working on it<http://groups.google.com/group/cloudcamp/browse_thread/thread/871ec2a...> since
> > 2007 <http://whois.domaintools.com/cloudalliance.org> is disingenuous at

> > best.
>
> > As a matter of interest, who will lead this "larger trade organization with
> > a larger budget than CCIF should handle"? Will you be involved? Enomaly?
>
> > Where are the meeting minutes (per subject)? As someone represented at the
> > meeting yesterday I want to know exactly what was said on my behalf and I
> > doubt I'm the only one.
>
> > Sam
>
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yesterday representatives of CCIF, CloudCamp, Cisco, IBM, Intel,
> >> Microsoft, and the IEEE-ISTO met while attending the Cloud Computing Expo in
> >> New York. Other companies were invited but were unable to attend, generally
> >> due to the short notice. The companies agreed on a shared goal to promote
> >> use and awareness of open and interoperable cloud computing. The group
> >> brainstormed several ideas including the possibility to build on the
> >> momentum created by CloudCamp. Another topic was the ability to enable
> >> participants, from individuals and companies, both large and small, to be
> >> able to contribute to and use the results of broad community collaboration.
> >> Additionally, the possibility of a trade association or marketing
> >> association for cloud computing was discussed but no specific actions were
> >> agreed. The final topic was the need to have broader participation from the
> >> community in this discussion.
>

> >> *Next Steps*

[Jesse L Silver]

Hi guys - I was at this meeting:

1. The meeting would have happened with or without us and so we attended in order to listen.
2. We did not make promises or agreements on behalf of CCIF.
3. We were asked to bring the sentiments of the companies present to the CCIF community in order to share their thoughts and offer their ideas up for discussion. Nothing has been decided, everything talked about is in the minutes.

If you have a better way for us to share information that gets discuss with other companies, let us know.

Thanks all,
Jesse

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

[David Bernstein (daberns)]

Hi Folks

 

Some of you will recognize me as a regular contributor/fellow researcher to this forum. I posted info about the IETF work some other guys in Cisco and other companies are doing regarding IP addressing which we think will relate to clouds, I’ve posted about our experiences using Eucalyptus (I think we have the largest Eucalyptus cloud ever built), and I’ve posted perspectives from a “big company” about legal structures for standards orgs/trade associations which are needed for companies to participate.

 

 You’ll also recognize Cisco as a sponsor of CCIF events (like the Wall St one later this week in NY). You will also recognize Cisco as being named one of the “big companies” working on projects like the Manifesto and the Association. Well that’s true, we are. We are trying to help create a forum where the spirit of the CCIF can live on but also we can get some work done and actually build some specs, analysis papers, incubate proposals for existing standards orgs, add some process and stability to cloud camps so companies like mine can keep pouring sponsorship into them, etc. It is very hard for a company to sponsor an event when the organization throwing it has no structure, who do you write the check to? Does it have event insurance for attendess? Stuff like that

 

 I’ve posted often about how most companies or end users or standards orgs  can’t pick up a spec, a diagram, or a paper which is posted to CCIF because of IP issues. The reality is there are patent trolls and infringement lawsuits all over this industry. It’s a shame but a reality. You all know what happened in Linux over the last few years in this zip code, what a mess. Add to this the topics I’ve posted on detailing that many companies can’t contribute to CCIF because it does not have a legal umbrella which clearly sets out  the purpose of the meeting,  avoiding  being misunderstood by the DOJ or SEC (this is important to companies).

 

So that brings us to proposing out in the open the formation of a trade association type of structure, to solve these problems. We talked about it, posted it right away, and now we are going to explore doing it, right here in the open and also in person in the open. Someone suggested re-using the Open Cloud Consortium structure, but this is not actually formalized the right way (we looked, you will notice we are involved in that terrific project). Other people have suggested looking at forming under the OGF, OMG, or other existing organization. Good ideas. But then we’d all have to see if that structure was right (any would probably work for my company to be honest). But, for the rest of you, do we have a membership structure that’s has a low enough fee/no fee for everyone to participate?  Are the optics/marketing too much of a challenge – does this mean cloud capitulates to Grid? What does an ORB have to do with Cloud? Finally, was this forced on the community who wants to “build our own”?

 

These are all hard issues to solve. And we could use all the advice and help we could get. That’s why we reached out to the IEEE ISTO, they are experts in formation challenges. This shows immediate promise. I think the discussions around non-profit formation can be solved by ISTO who have lawyers on staff and have done dozens of these already.

 

I’m dedicated to continuing to contribute to the CCIF and the open cloud community in general, as a participant at the end of the spectrum along with many of my colleagues which I’d like to characterize as a bunch of smart guys with the right “open and interoperable”  DNA who happen to work for larger companies. There are a lot of us and we have done a good job for the computing industry for a long time. I am sure you all want everyone to contribute to this goal from students, to individuals, to startups, to companies large and small from vendors to enterprises to governments. So lets keep working, keep talking, and keeping each other honest,  to make an association or alliance which can be inclusive to all those – er, us - people.

 

David Bernstein

Cisco.

[Raja Srinivasan]

Folks:

I am glad that the major vendors are talking about an industry forum. In the past, I've seen numbers like $200,000 to $500,000 to put together a forum where we can develop standard interfaces. Here is the answer. If Rue or anyone else can get the big vendors to contribute money, we are half-way there!!!!

Go for it.....

Thanks & Regards
Raja Srinivasan

[David Bernstein (daberns)]

Hi Raja

My participation in CCIF has little to do with Ruv. I mean he or no one else "got" me to participate . I am like you, I choose to participate and I feel like CCIF is as much mine as you do, I mean its "ours". I am saying these things to personalize the "big companies" here. We are just people doing work just like everyone else after all. 

David.

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Raja Srinivasan [mailto:sali...@gmail.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, March 31, 2009 02:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
To:     cloud...@googlegroups.com
Subject:        Re: NYC Update & Minutes of informal meeting in NYC, March 30, 2009

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

Maybe you can mention this in the keynote?

http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2009/04/01/cloud-standards-breakthrough-with-new-cloud-source-license/

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dxr5cbn_03ghsr8ft

I like the idea of "GNU/CloudLeft". All your Cloud are belong to us!
Maybe the ultimate expression of the FSF philosophy!

geir