On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Bill Burke <bbu
...@redhat.com> wrote:
> This all sounds very similar to my vision for OGF's OCCI <
>> http://www.occi-wg.org/> and is exactly why I've split off core from
>> infrastructure concerns - it definitely sounds like we should be
>> collaborating more in future.
> I'm open to creating any new specifications. Would it make sense to have a
> REST-* Cloud API specification?
Does REST-* want to be an SSO? I would say emphatically "no" - it's better
to contribute to open processes and evangelise the result. That's what I did
with OCCI rather than trying to create something from scratch - OGF had a
BoF group that had all the requisite infrastructure in place and just needed
some direction.
You may well find that extending OCCI core (basically a RESTful framework
for minting compatible APIs) gives you the best of both worlds - freedom to
develop your own standards without weaving a patchwork quilt. Reconciling
OCCI and DeltaCloud is also an option as if we don't align then we're likely
to end up with ordinary standards that benefit some parties at the expense
of others (see last week's Dilbert on that topic:
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-09-02/).
> FWIW REST-* sounds like something I could get behind but to be completely
>> candid (as always) I'm disappointed to see similar governance <
>>
http://www.jboss.org/reststar/community/governance.html> shenanigans to
>> those that undermined the WS-I <
>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Services_Interoperability>: "/Red Hat,
>> as the founder of REST-*, gets a permanent seat on the board. All other
>> board members must be elected by the overall membership once a year/". If
>> it's not too late then please reconsider this position.
> What should it be changed to? So far the governance policies seem pretty
> liberal to me (since I wrote it). RHT as a permanent member of the board
> seems reasonable to me considering we started it and will be doing most of
> the work initially. Then again, if its a show stopper it will be removed.
IMO any type of preferential treatment undermines the goal of being open and
unnecessarily breeds mistrust - I for one am not only unlikely to support
such an initiative but very likely to be critical of it. It not only
discourages active participation of the "founding fathers" and others
but jeopardises the entire initiative should they lose interest - just look
at what it did for WS-I (there was a great InfoWorld article on the subject
which has recently vanished).
The best approach is to build a large, committed membership base and justify
to them at every opportunity why it is you deserve to be leading them. If
someone more capable comes along then that is presumably better for your
initiative anyway, and if you have a large enough base you have good
stability/security.
Can we discuss your thoughts about governance more at:
I joined the list before (that makes three of us) and am copying it now -
let's follow up over there.
Sam
