Re: CCIF for Commerce

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

Did you accidentally send this a day too early?

geir

On Mar 31, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Jason Meiers wrote:

>
> Added CCIF for Commerce. Here is the link. http://cloudbasics.com/
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jason
> Monitoring-as-a-Service(TM)
> >
>

[Jason Meiers]

nice one. its actually a day late.

> > Monitoring-as-a-Service(TM)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Reuven Cohen]

Jason, we're ok with the idea. But would prefer if you didn't use the CCIF name. Why not just call it cloudbasics for commerce? CCIF for commerce sounds like we have some kind of involvement. Which we don't.

Reuven

[Sam Johnston]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com> wrote:

Jason, we're ok with the idea. But would prefer if you didn't use the CCIF name. Why not just call it cloudbasics for commerce? CCIF for commerce sounds like we have some kind of involvement. Which we don't.

Ironically, adding "trademark protection" to the CCIF-NG todo list.

Sam

[Jason Meiers]

Agree this has nothing to do with a mainfesto. As far as I know there
is not trademark on CCIF until then it will be used.

On Mar 31, 2:26 pm, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com> wrote:
> Jason, we're ok with the idea. But would prefer if you didn't use the CCIF
> name. Why not just call it cloudbasics for commerce? CCIF for commerce
> sounds like we have some kind of involvement. Which we don't.
>
> Reuven
>

> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <g...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Did you accidentally send this a day too early?
>
> > geir
>
> > On Mar 31, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Jason Meiers wrote:
>

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

Moderators,

Can you please ban Jason for good? I think it's fair to say that this
behavior is intentionally in complete and total conflict with any
generally understood customs of civilized, cooperative community
behavior.

geir

[Jason Meiers]

go for it.

> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Reuven Cohen]

Jason, this has little do with trademark and more to do with a consistent brand association. If we truly want to create something (trade association, etc) for the greater cloud industry we must have a consistent brand. As others have said, we're not even sure if it will be called CCIF, but for now, we're in the spot light so lets not do anything that appears conflicting.

Geir, As for banning anyone. We've attempted to create a radically open forum. Either we're open or we're not.


reuven 

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Reuven Cohen wrote:

> Jason, this has little do with trademark and more to do with a
> consistent brand association. If we truly want to create something
> (trade association, etc) for the greater cloud industry we must have
> a consistent brand. As others have said, we're not even sure if it
> will be called CCIF, but for now, we're in the spot light so lets
> not do anything that appears conflicting.
>
> Geir, As for banning anyone. We've attempted to create a radically
> open forum. Either we're open or we're not.

You want to give me a lecture about openness? :)

This guy deliberately is attempting to hijack the CCIF name for use in
his private business. I can understand if it was a mistake, and when
gently and politely called on it (as you did), he would apologize and
fix the problem. "Mistakes were made..."

Instead, he basically told all of us to go pound sand.

I'm all for free speech, open speech, contrary speech, and conflicting
points of view. That's what makes a healthy and open community.

I'm not into letting someone steal what I think of as collectively
held property.

geir

[Jason Meiers]

In the spotlight for the wrong purpose. Who in this group actually
signed up for a manifesto? not me, actualy the opposite to generate
new opportunties by supporting interoperability for cloud computing.

On Mar 31, 2:57 pm, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com> wrote:
> Jason, this has little do with trademark and more to do with a consistent
> brand association. If we truly want to create something (trade association,
> etc) for the greater cloud industry we must have a consistent brand. As
> others have said, we're not even sure if it will be called CCIF, but for
> now, we're in the spot light so lets not do anything that appears
> conflicting.
>
> Geir, As for banning anyone. We've attempted to create a radically open
> forum. Either we're open or we're not.
>
> reuven
>

> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Jason Meiers <jason.mei...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Agree this has nothing to do with a mainfesto. As far as I know there
> > is not trademark on CCIF until then it will be used.
>
> > On Mar 31, 2:26 pm, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com> wrote:
> > > Jason, we're ok with the idea. But would prefer if you didn't use the
> > CCIF
> > > name. Why not just call it cloudbasics for commerce? CCIF for commerce
> > > sounds like we have some kind of involvement. Which we don't.
>
> > > Reuven
>
> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <g...@pobox.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > Did you accidentally send this a day too early?
>
> > > > geir
>
> > > > On Mar 31, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Jason Meiers wrote:
>
> > > > > Added CCIF for Commerce. Here is the link.http://cloudbasics.com/
>
> > > > > Best Regards,
>
> > > > > Jason
> > > > > Monitoring-as-a-Service(TM)- Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Jeremy Day]

Jason,

You're in the spotlight for an entirely appropriate reason.  It doesn't sound like Reuven's polite request had anything to do with what has been dubbed "Manifestogate."

Jeremy

[Jason Meiers]

@geir

open source is sooo out of style since its filled with suits going
against competitors that they cant compete with.

[Sam Johnston]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com> wrote:

Geir, As for banning anyone. We've attempted to create a radically open forum. Either we're open or we're not.

FWIW my "open policy" (and indeed pretty much every Internet-based community) includes provisions for dealing with disruptive individuals. We can certainly have a "radically open forum" which is still protected from disruption (see Tim Bray's post on Wikipedianism).

While it is unfortuante that Jason has chosen to test the theory at such a critical time for us, I propose that he be moderated temporarily (24-48 hours, or until we devise a policy to rely on). It may be that we do indeed find his actions "intentionally in complete and total conflict with any generally understood customs of civilized, cooperative community
behavior" and ban him permanently at that time. Given he has already taken his grievance off-list (see comment #6) there is no point provoking more bad blood.

Sam (who didn't realise Ruv was a TYPO3 guy in a past life, per comment #7)
 

[Jason Meiers]

Are you saying it isnt right to let anyone know that the document
distributed yesterday is not supported by all members of the network?

On Mar 31, 3:28 pm, Sam Johnston <s...@samj.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com> wrote:
>
> Geir, As for banning anyone. We've attempted to create a radically open
>
> > forum. Either we're open or we're not.
>
> FWIW my "open policy" (and indeed pretty much every Internet-based
> community) includes provisions for dealing with disruptive individuals. We
> can certainly have a "radically open forum" which is still protected from
> disruption (see Tim Bray's post on

> Wikipedianism<http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2009/03/29/Wikipedianism>
> ).

>
> While it is unfortuante that Jason has chosen to test the theory at such a
> critical time for us, I propose that he be moderated temporarily (24-48
> hours, or until we devise a policy to rely on). It may be that we do indeed

> find his actions "*intentionally in complete and total conflict with any

> generally understood customs of civilized, cooperative community

> behavior*" and ban him permanently at that time. Given he has already taken

> his grievance off-list (see comment

> #6<http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http%3A%2F...>)

> there is no point provoking more bad blood.
>
> Sam (who didn't realise Ruv was a TYPO3 guy in a past life, per comment #7)
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Jason Meiers <jason.mei...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> Agree this has nothing to do with a mainfesto. As far as I know there
> >> is not trademark on CCIF until then it will be used.
>
> >> On Mar 31, 2:26 pm, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com> wrote:
> >> > Jason, we're ok with the idea. But would prefer if you didn't use the
> >> CCIF
> >> > name. Why not just call it cloudbasics for commerce? CCIF for commerce
> >> > sounds like we have some kind of involvement. Which we don't.
>
> >> > Reuven
>
> >> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <g...@pobox.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > > Did you accidentally send this a day too early?
>
> >> > > geir
>
> >> > > On Mar 31, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Jason Meiers wrote:
>
> >> > > > Added CCIF for Commerce. Here is the link.http://cloudbasics.com/
>
> >> > > > Best Regards,
>
> >> > > > Jason
> >> > > > Monitoring-as-a-Service(TM)- Hide quoted text -
>

> >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[groupalias v]

No he is asking you to remove CCIF from your website. Can you do that keeping the community in mind?

[Jason Meiers]

I am keeping the network in mind as opposed to the misleading document
sent out yesterday. Not all members are ok with a document of such
nature.

Yes, CCIF will be removed after completion of trademarking CCIF by the
group, as Sam added ot the tasklist. Until the property CCIF is
purchased, with a bill of reciept I can remove it, in the meantime it
is currently supporting CCIF commerce.

On Mar 31, 4:39 pm, groupalias v <group....@gmail.com> wrote:
> No he is asking you to remove CCIF from your website. Can you do that
> keeping the community in mind?
>

[tluk...@exnihilum.com]

>> "open source is sooo out of style.."

Ok, that explains why I got a "Your client does not have permission to get URL /p/opensemp/ from this server" response when I checked the status of his "open" SEMP project at 'google code'. An "open" project that had no actual code or documentation in sight to begin with, and then raises the drawbridge so that you can't even access the project.

This guy (and his "open" SEMP) are really a joke. Why should so many busy, talented people spend any more time and effort on this guy now that he's showing his true colors?

TL

-----Original Message-----
From: "Jason Meiers" [jason....@gmail.com]
Date: 03/31/2009 09:08 AM
To: "Cloud Computing Interoperability Forum (CCIF)" <cloud...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: CCIF for Commerce


@geir

open source is sooo out of style since its filled with suits going
against competitors that they cant compete with.

On Mar 31, 3:03 pm, Jason Meiers <jason.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the spotlight for the wrong purpose. Who in this group actually
> signed up for a manifesto? not me, actualy the opposite to generate
> new opportunties by supporting interoperability for cloud computing.
>

> On Mar 31, 2:57 pm, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jason, this has little do with trademark and more to do with a consistent
> > brand association. If we truly want to create something (trade association,
> > etc) for the greater cloud industry we must have a consistent brand. As
> > others have said, we're not even sure if it will be called CCIF, but for
> > now, we're in the spot light so lets not do anything that appears
> > conflicting.
>

> > Geir, As for banning anyone. We've attempted to create a radically open
> > forum. Either we're open or we're not.
>

> > reuven

>
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Jason Meiers <jason.mei...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > Agree this has nothing to do with a mainfesto. As far as I know there
> > > is not trademark on CCIF until then it will be used.
>
> > > On Mar 31, 2:26 pm, Reuven Cohen <r...@enomaly.com> wrote:
> > > > Jason, we're ok with the idea. But would prefer if you didn't use the
> > > CCIF
> > > > name. Why not just call it cloudbasics for commerce? CCIF for commerce
> > > > sounds like we have some kind of involvement. Which we don't.
>
> > > > Reuven
>
> > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <g...@pobox.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Did you accidentally send this a day too early?
>
> > > > > geir
>
> > > > > On Mar 31, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Jason Meiers wrote:
>

> > > > > > Added CCIF for Commerce. Here is the link.http://cloudbasics.com/

[Sam Johnston]

CCIF Forked: CCIF for Commerce spins off

This is entertaining enough to be an April Fool's day joke, but alas it's not. Sure enough, the Cloud Computing Interoperability Forum (CCIF) has forked, though that's not the best of it: there's absolutely nothing that the "real" CCIF can do about the insolent Cloud Computing Interoperability Forum for Commerce spin-off. If you want to be part of the fiasco you can apply for membership.

Even if CCIF had a trademark for it's name (it doesn't), and a legal entity to strap it to (it doesn't) this is a European based "initiative" that would be outside of reach of the long arm of the USPTO. CCIF for Commerce claims to have offices all over the place so getting it to drop the use of the term could well be quite complicated - notwithstanding the many months it will take to set up the infrastructure and register trademarks (as you know I've been following trademark issues around cloud computing since Dell tried to co-opt the term last year).

Started by Jason Meiers of "XMPP is too stuffy" fame, it's being actively pimped on the basis of "added trust and setting expectations correctly". They've already been told to cut it out by Reuven Cohen (self-appointed "Instigator" of CCIF) but he's essentially been told to sit and spin.

The gags keep rolling in...

[Dave Nielsen]

Jason, I have one question for you ... Why do you think it is appropriate to use the CCIF name in your project? 

I'd like to think I'm a pretty logical and open person, as are most people in this forum, but I can't for the life of me see anything constructive about your effort. 

Best,

Dave

[Sam Johnston]

According to this tweet:

CCIF for Commerce MEETUP Frankfurt, April 9th at 1pm. Only 7 spots left http://tinyurl.com/dd9hnm email: jason....@utilitystatus.com

7 spots left at an 8 seat table? Ironic the fork is less open. Sounds like a[nother] scam - it's been a full time job keeping track of them all this week...

Sam

[Jesse L Silver]

Hi Jason - if you do not remove the CCIF name from your project, we will have to consider removing you from this list and sending you a cease and desist letter. The community has truly spoken on this.

Please weigh your options here.

Thanks,
Jesse

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Jason Meiers <jason....@gmail.com> wrote:

The docuement sent out this week does not represent all of the group.
It is important to understand that the group is for interoperability
not just being open. It will include commecial protocols as well. As
you can see most of successful cloud computing vendors actually didnt
sign the document released monday. The applogies are headed in a good
direction although actions speak loader than words, once the action
item on the tasklist is complted to trademark CCIF I will remove it.

Are you saying you have to be open to participate in cloud computing?
Thats maybe for the list of players who signed the document who
actually couldnt deliver a real cloud. CCIF for Commerce works with
small/medium and large enterprises to provide interoperability
advocacy that include commercial protocols as well.

On Apr 1, 6:14 pm, Dave Nielsen <dniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jason, I have one question for you ... Why do you think it is appropriate to
> use the CCIF name in your project?
> I'd like to think I'm a pretty logical and open person, as are most people
> in this forum, but I can't for the life of me see anything constructive
> about your effort.
>
> Best,Dave
>

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

[Alejandro Espinoza]

Jason,

The fact remains. Where is the value on reusing the name? I fail to see any value. I know the name is cool, I mean look at it: CCIF is so sexy! Other than having a sexy name, I fail to see the value in your proposition.

This is stealing, even if you don't accept it.

Regards,
Alex

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Jason Meiers <jason....@gmail.com> wrote:

The docuement sent out this week does not represent all of the group.
It is important to understand that the group is for interoperability
not just being open. It will include commecial protocols as well. As
you can see most of successful cloud computing vendors actually didnt
sign the document released monday. The applogies are headed in a good
direction although actions speak loader than words, once the action
item on the tasklist is complted to trademark CCIF I will remove it.

Are you saying you have to be open to participate in cloud computing?
Thats maybe for the list of players who signed the document who
actually couldnt deliver a real cloud. CCIF for Commerce works with
small/medium and large enterprises to provide interoperability
advocacy that include commercial protocols as well.

On Apr 1, 6:14 pm, Dave Nielsen <dniel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jason, I have one question for you ... Why do you think it is appropriate to
> use the CCIF name in your project?
> I'd like to think I'm a pretty logical and open person, as are most people
> in this forum, but I can't for the life of me see anything constructive
> about your effort.
>
> Best,Dave
>

--
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).

[Alejandro Espinoza]

Jason,

I don't know if you noticed, but you are alone on this. The only one getting banned is you. You are not the community  and you don't own the network. So problem solved.

Regards,
Alex

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Jason Meiers <jason....@gmail.com> wrote:

Back to this again are we Jesse. Go for it. You could have banned
every body against agianst your community. Its our network. If your
want to ban. Go for it.

> twitter.com/silverguru- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

--

[eprpa...@gmail.com]

OMG! In the last week this newsgroup has wasted more bandwidth and
energy accomplishing so little. There is just too much noise and too
little real signal. Time to sign off!!!

Chuck Wegrzyn

\Jason Meiers wrote:
> Alejandro,
>
> CCIF for Commerce represents a part of CCIF that hasent been
> supported, especially not Monday.
>
> On Apr 1, 7:05 pm, Alejandro Espinoza <alejandro.espin...@gmail.com>

>> 714-491-2636 office | 714-470-7125 cell | aespin...@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).- Hide quoted text -