Identification of use-cases
Eric Windisch
suggestion that we identify the use-cases for the cloud. Since I was
so bold as to suggest this, I was tasked with initiating research and
involving community support towards an identification of relevant use-
cases. To start the discussion, I have created two lists of use-
cases. These have been instituted on the wiki at cloudcommunity.org.
I should note that I have no particular inclination to use that site,
other than the fact that there appears to be no better place at this
time.
Understanding that not all members may be comfortable with a wiki
format, or in discussing this in public, I invite anyone that wishes
to privately contact me by email with any changes they might like.
Please also feel free to discuss these documents publicly here on the
mailing list and to make modifications to the wiki content.
1. The first document identifies use-cases according to the "cloud
stack", specifying high-level use-cases for each layer. My goals with
this first list is to identify and define what each layer of the cloud
stack does, and to create a guide for users, developers, and vendors
to identify at which layer to build. The URL for this document is http://wiki.cloudcommunity.org/wiki/General_use_cases
2. The second document identifies use-cases that customers will come
to expect from vendors and will be necessary to address from an
interoperability perspective, and must ultimately be addressed by
standards. My goal here is that we can provide information regarding
user expectations and user-cases to outside standards organizations
and working groups. The URL for this second list is http://wiki.cloudcommunity.org/wiki/Interoperability_use_cases
Please recognize that I have explicitly indicated "My goal(s)" as I
leave it to the community to determine what the goals of these
documents may be. These are merely my own suggestions as to what we
should expect to do, and from what we can produce from this work. As
before, please send feedback to me in public, or in private, as you so
desire.
Regards,
Eric Windisch
JP Morgenthal
Certainly we have seen a rise of passion in this forum from many of
its members. Passion is good, albeit, it can be misdirected and be
not effective in reaching a positive outcome. However, underlying
that passion is a desire to create. For some, this creation is
altruistic, for some education and for some ego. I believe it all
gets normalized when mixed together. However, a community like this
cannot survive when one member takes credit for another's work
regardless of the reason.
I present the following for this group's admonishment. This morning
this email was in my inbox. My initial thoughts was "it's petty to
address" but then after speaking offline with some I realized that
it's important for the group to understand the influences which will
continue to tar this group with negative persona.
In response to the passionate infighting of this past weekend and in
an effort to get something real accomplished I sent out the following
email to this group:
http://groups.google.com/group/cloudforum/browse_thread/thread/07d1b36e61a2b05f?hl=en
In this email, I clearly state that in an attempt to get something
real accomplished, I was going to the Google Group pages that Sam
Johnson had created to develop three specific works: a set of general
use cases, a set of interoperability use cases and a dictionary. Sam,
then moved these pages to the Wiki:
http://groups.google.com/group/cloudcomputing/web . Sam even
attributed the work to me appropriately in the history.:
http://wiki.cloudcommunity.org/index.php?title=Interoperability_use_cases&action=history
.
Eric's email this morning states the following (not my commentary):
> Last week, at the CCIF meeting on Wall Street, it was decided upon my
> suggestion that we identify the use-cases for the cloud.
Once again admonishing anyone who could not attend, the most minor of
his infractions
>Since I was
> so bold as to suggest this, I was tasked with initiating research and
> involving community support towards an identification of relevant use-
> cases. To start the discussion, I have created two lists of use-
> cases.
An here is the most egregious of his offenses, stating he had created
what Sam had actually created, which was simply moved over from Sam's
Cloud Computing Google Group that was my body of work.
These have been instituted on the wiki at cloudcommunity.org.
> I should note that I have no particular inclination to use that site,
> other than the fact that there appears to be no better place at this
> time.
>
Frankly, I have asked Sam to re-instate the initial pages back at the
Cloud Computing site and will continue my work there. I have no
interest to being associated with the constant ego-maniacal
shenanigans of this list any longer.
My note to customers, analysts, journalists and vendors lurking about,
let this me say this. There are some good people in this list, but in
my opinion, how they handle this type of blatant plagiarism will tell
much about the the future effectiveness of this group and it's ability
to operate objectively and fairly.
Sincerely
JP
tluk...@exnihilum.com
@JP, Re: "blatant plagiarism"
Ideas are magic in that you can give them away a hundred times over -- or even have them "stolen from you" if you want to look at it that way -- and guess what: you still have them! The most brilliant minds in history readily acknowledge that they've merely built on the ideas of others. If we're going to have to start keeping track of who's idea something was "first" then how's that different from copyrights, patents and other forms of "un-openness"?
The "idea" of creating use cases is about as obvious as they come, and I'm sure that a few more of the 800 people in this community have already been thinking about or already doing exactly that on their own. If anyone "owns" the idea of writing Use Cases it's Ivar Jacobson, and I don't think he'd be complaining.
TL
Jeremy Day
I think that JP's problem, and forgive me if I am incorrect here, is that Eric was taking credit for his work, not just the ideas. Eric was taking credit for the words and the thought that went into them. The idea of identifying use-cases is cheap, and should have been one of the first things accomplished after the formation of the CCIF. After all, what are the use-cases for interoperability? Seems like an obvious question to me. However, the thought and the work going into actually producing the use-cases is not so obvious and not trivial.
So, again, forgive me if I'm misspeaking here, but that's my interpretation of the problem.
Jeremy
JP Morgenthal
clarify your incorrect assumption. There's a difference between an
coming up with an idea, which this is not the case, and claiming to
have done work that others have already done, which this is the case.
But, thank you for helping bring to light the type of thinking that is
endemic to this group.
tluk...@exnihilum.com
>> "I don't intend to argue this point"
And I don't intend to belabor the point, but it's as un-becoming to cry about someone "stealing" your ideas as it is to claim someone else's ideas as your own. Understand what I'm saying?
Eric Windisch
> An here is the most egregious of his offenses, stating he had created
> what Sam had actually created, which was simply moved over from Sam's
> Cloud Computing Google Group that was my body of work.
This is insane! How many members of this group simply exist to deride
any potential progress and simply cause community strife? In my
eyes, my work and actions here have been entirely open and
transparent. I hesitate to even respond to you, as I realize that I'm
only feeding the trolls.
Yes, the actual wiki pages were there already. There were short,
concise lists of about 4 items on those pages. I left that
information there, mostly unchanged. I then added my additional
content, more than doubling the size and volume of those documents. I
saw these pages were only created on or after the date that Sam and I
spoke privately about this, when I had told him that I was working on
an identification of use-cases, I was myself slightly annoyed by this
-- but decided it would be better to work together, than to work
apart. I envisioned this as a community effort, not a tug-of-war
between warring nations or egos. Clearly, the wiki history speaks
for itself, and I did not intend to present anyone else's work as my
own, but to identify the location of my work (which, yes, happens to
be at the same location as yours).
Fine, take down my additions, but you and Sam will give up any claims
to openness and interoperability that you're claiming for. You're
saying that because this information originated from another member of
the CCIF (who isn't even involved in governance, existing or
otherwise), or that it was briefly discussed during a physical
meeting, that it is no good? Or because I was not clear enough in
presenting the fact that those pages existed with about 4 bullet
points, before I added my independently and pre-conceived content to
them? Or perhaps it is that you preferred that nobody edit those
pages at all, in which case the pages should have been locked? If you
wish to take down my additions based on quality or content, thats
entirely fine.
The conversation at the physical CCIF meeting regarding this was
incredibly brief. I suggested something and it was thrown back to me
as an action item. As such, I've simply attempted to form a "starting
point" for discussion and something to extend. This is not a
finished product, it is simply a call to the community to embrace and
extend. Neither is this "an official anything" of the CCIF, it is
simply the result of an individual's work. Could it lead to a CCIF
endorsed document? Sure, it could. Is it now, or currently a CCIF
document? I'd say not.
I have since located the Google Pages associated with the CCIF
group. I had difficulty locating these pages and thus did not use
them initially. Since posting this email, I have found the Google
Pages but still believe that cooperating with others is an admirable
goal and there is no reason to splinter here. I only a disclaimer in
case anyone was upset about my using of that wiki. I personally found
no problem with it, otherwise I wouldn't have done it. Yet, because I
realize that not everyone may be as open-minded as I am, I provided my
blessing towards any considerations of moving the information.
--
Eric Windisch
tluk...@exnihilum.com
>> "forgive me if I am incorrect here"
And just as it was clear to you what happened, it doesn't require JP to play Town Crier and make sure that we all notice. I can personally point out specific ideas and issues that I brought up months ago that were completely ignored, but when re-introduced by someone else were hailed as breakthroughs and the posters held up as thought leaders. I've even seen the very same words I've used in my overlooked postings echoed in these later groundbreaking postings.
I just looked at this as a positive in that whatever awareness that I was trying to create was now created, and I could build on it just the same. So I'm just giving JP advice from experience; crying about such petty injustices does more to diminish your image than improve it.
TL
-----Original Message-----
From: "Jeremy Day" [jerem...@gmail.com]
Date: 04/09/2009 01:22 PM
To: cloud...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Identification of use-cases
I think that JPs problem, and forgive me if I am incorrect here, is that Eric was taking credit for his work, not just the ideas. Eric was taking credit for the words and the thought that went into them. The idea of identifying use-cases is cheap, and should have been one of the first things accomplished after the formation of the CCIF. After all, what are the use-cases for interoperability? Seems like an obvious question to me. However, the thought and the work going into actually producing the use-cases is not so obvious and not trivial.
So, again, forgive me if Im misspeaking here, but thats my interpretation of the problem.
Jeremy
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:01 PM, tluk...@exnihilum.com <tluk...@exnihilum.com> wrote:
@JP, Re: "blatant plagiarism"
The "idea" of creating use cases is about as obvious as they come, and Im sure that a few more of the 800 people in this community have already been thinking about or already doing exactly that on their own. If anyone "owns" the idea of writing Use Cases its Ivar Jacobson, and I dont think hed be complaining.
TL
-----Original Message-----
From: "JP Morgenthal" [jpmorg...@gmail.com]
Date: 04/09/2009 10:03 AM
To: cloud...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Identification of use-cases
Ladies and Gentlemen of this community,
Certainly we have seen a rise of passion in this forum from many of
its members. Passion is good, albeit, it can be misdirected and be
not effective in reaching a positive outcome. However, underlying
that passion is a desire to create. For some, this creation is
altruistic, for some education and for some ego. I believe it all
gets normalized when mixed together. However, a community like this
regardless of the reason.
I present the following for this groups admonishment. This morning
this email was in my inbox. My initial thoughts was "its petty to
address" but then after speaking offline with some I realized that
continue to tar this group with negative persona.
In response to the passionate infighting of this past weekend and in
an effort to get something real accomplished I sent out the following
email to this group:
http://groups.google.com/group/cloudforum/browse_thread/thread/07d1b36e61a2b05f?hl=en
In this email, I clearly state that in an attempt to get something
real accomplished, I was going to the Google Group pages that Sam
Johnson had created to develop three specific works: a set of general
use cases, a set of interoperability use cases and a dictionary. Sam,
then moved these pages to the Wiki:
http://groups.google.com/group/cloudcomputing/web . Sam even
attributed the work to me appropriately in the history.:
http://wiki.cloudcommunity.org/index.php?title=Interoperability_use_cases&action=history
.
> Last week, at the CCIF meeting on Wall Street, it was decided upon my
> suggestion that we identify the use-cases for the cloud.
Once again admonishing anyone who could not attend, the most minor of
his infractions
>Since I was
> so bold as to suggest this, I was tasked with initiating research and
> involving community support towards an identification of relevant use-
> cases. To start the discussion, I have created two lists of use-
> cases.
Cloud Computing Google Group that was my body of work.
> I should note that I have no particular inclination to use that site,
> other than the fact that there appears to be no better place at this
> time.
>
Frankly, I have asked Sam to re-instate the initial pages back at the
Cloud Computing site and will continue my work there. I have no
interest to being associated with the constant ego-maniacal
shenanigans of this list any longer.
My note to customers, analysts, journalists and vendors lurking about,
let this me say this. There are some good people in this list, but in
my opinion, how they handle this type of blatant plagiarism will tell
Reuven Cohen
Also, if you're not happy with this group, you are always free to unsubscribe. No one is forcing you to participate.
http://groups.google.com/group/cloudforum/subscribe
r/c
tluk...@exnihilum.com
>> "This is insane!"
@ Eric
Unfortunately our short-lived "technical discussion" has again been replaced by Soap Opera nonsense. I just want to state clearly that I was not in any way assuming or intending to picture you "guilty as charged". By getting sucked into immediately and strongly responding to the wrong-headedness of JP's complaining about a PERCEIVED injustice I overlooked the actual details and your side of the story.
TL
-----Original Message-----
From: "Eric Windisch" [er...@grokthis.net]
Date: 04/09/2009 01:39 PM
To: cloud...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Identification of use-cases
>
> what Sam had actually created, which was simply moved over from Sam's
> Cloud Computing Google Group that was my body of work.
ewindisch
have better indicated that some of the content originated from Sam and
JP. I should also give credit to Jason at EngineYard for a great
private discussion in which either directly contributed to, or
provided inspiration for some of the content I've written. I again
and explicitly apologize if this was not clearly enough presented, or
if anyone was upset by this. My intention here was simply to create
a starting point, not to take credit for anything -- I don't even need
credit for the work I've done, let alone anyone else's -- I am
interested in progress, not in bickering, fighting, ownership, or
egos.
Thank you. Please, can we get to actual work now, and stop fighting?
--
Eric Windisch
Reuven Cohen
It looks like JP has unsubscribed. Let's move on.
r/c
Sam Johnston
- JP (an ex-Sr Analyst at Burton, among other things) gives up trying to get work done in CCIF and does it elsewhere instead... work which I move to a wiki that actually works (unlike Google's Pages)
- Eric dumps a bunch of independent work in said wiki and mistakenly takes credit for what was there before
- Reuven takes advantage of the opportunity to not only criticise JP but also the wiki I've spent many hours setting up, claiming there are "no clear legal structure or policies" when there clearly are here, here and here (where are CCIF's?). Tosses in a pronouncement for his infamous "alliance" for good measure and rudely shows JP the door.
- JP doesn't need to be asked twice so he unsubscribes, but not without sending a goodbye note (forwarded to me, below, along with a request to step in). Reuven, still not having learnt his lesson, censors it. For good measure Eric tweets "Another day, another troll for the #CCIF."
- I get a phone call and once again CCIF's reputation gets another public beating for underhanded misbehaviour.
The topic of credit and attribution is something I'm well versed in courtesy the decision to migrate Wikipedia to CC-BY-SA. Like it or not many contributions are more egotistical than altruistic, but with community collaboration individual attributions are meaningless so it can be better to attribute entire communities (e.g. Wikipedia). I will often release my own work completely under the new CC-0 license so everyone can use it without attributing me (though claiming it as their own is not on), and when I use others' work I tend to acknowledge everyone. I don't see why this has to be so difficult...
Sam
Subject: Re: Identification of use-cases
And, on that note, I wish you all success and hope to see those that
want to work on the use cases and dictionary over at
http://groups.google.com/group/cloudcomputing/web .
I leave this word of caution to the CCIF, when victims are vilified
for speaking out against their injustices, you have facism
Adios!
------------------------------
JP Morgenthal
cell : 703-554-5301
email: jpmorg...@gmail.com
email: m...@jpmorgenthal.com
twitter: www.twitter.com/jpmorgenthal
blog: www.jpmorgenthal.com/morgenthal
Eric Windisch
- JP doesn't need to be asked twice so he unsubscribes, but not without sending a goodbye note (forwarded to me, below, along with a request to step in). Reuven, still not having learnt his lesson, censors it. For good measure Eric tweets "Another day, another troll for the #CCIF."