What is going on here?

[afalcon]

When I joined the CCIF, I was hoping to get involved in an
organization of professional looking to facilitate the development of
standards of openness and interoperability of an emerging technology
set. I had visions of a grand and noble effort, much like the early
life of the IETF, in which everbody with interest and the means threw
their technical expertise into the mix, with open comment and review
from all intested parties.

Now, we have the "Open Cloud Manisfesto". <B>The very use of the term
"Manifesto" is offensive</B>. By definition, a <a href="http://
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manifesto"
target="_blank">manifesto</a> is a one-sided declaration of intent,
not a collaborative effort. The fact that Reuven and others feel that
this is the best way to facilitate openness seems contrary to their
own stated goals for the CCIF.

Then, we have the secrecy. I keep hearing of "multiple parties" being
involved. Yet, I read of others looking to participate (even offering
to travel) and being rebuffed. Maybe I've missed it among the myriad
of postings, but I haven't seen other CCIF members owning up to co-
authorship.

I've seen other members working to create a strategic document, and
doing so in the open (thank you, Sam), but these efforts appear to be
marginalized the by the "leaders" of the CCIF.

The IETF worked, and works, because active and passive participants
trust that the effort reflects the broader consensus of the group and
competing interests have and equal opportunity to participate and
comment.

If CCIF is going to lead, then it must build trust. Full disclosure
and a level platform for participation are both critical to this
trust.

Every single IETF document includes a complete list of contributors --
it is part of the initial draft even before anything more than a title
is in print. CCIF should do the same.

IETF strives for broad input, actively seeking participants. CCIF
should do the same.

IETF provides means for open and public comment from the moment a
Draft 00 is defined. CCIF has not, but should do the same.

Until the CCIF takes these steps, it is hard to believe the the
Manifesto is anything more than a one-person rant.

Stop telling us in posts how influencial the CCIF has become and start
acting like it. Prove to the industry that you intend to live up to
your stated goals.

If you do not do so, and quickly, the CCIF is nothing more than a
small group of smart, self-righteous, individuals trying to prove
their own importance to an industry and community that will no longer
care to listen.

[Jesse L Silver]

I agree with much of what you've said, thanks for posting. It appears our heads are simultaneously moving in a similar direction..

I'll repost part of a comment I made a few minutes ago:

mistakes were made, and to that end Reuven and I are literally in the process right now of crafting a proposal to the community that should go a long way to begin the process of repair. We will post it [Sunday] morning (good to sleep on ideas before sending them out).

To that end, I ask that everyone in the community begin thinking about their conceptions of where the CCIF can go from here. Our letter will clarify a few things that we owe to all, but mainly it will propose a way forward and then open the forum to discussion."

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

[adhi]

Hi !

Many of us feel the same way though we are mute spectators to the
whole drama.

I have no problem in admitting that I have a strong anti-MS stand and
that is my prerogative.
But having taken up as community effort I do not think one person can
represent our collective ideas without discussing in the forum.

Rue simply "declared" that he is going to handle MS which is very
deplorable .
I am not sure whether to brand it as over enthusiasm or high
handedness.

Anyway we have been promised corrective action and I hope things will
improve from now onwards.

Cheers

Varadarajan

thinteknix ottawa

[afalcon]

Jesse,

Thank you for the reply. I'll watch for the proposal.

Allen

On Mar 29, 12:51 am, Jesse L Silver <silverg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with much of what you've said, thanks for posting. It appears our
> heads are simultaneously moving in a similar direction..
>
> I'll repost part of a comment I made a few minutes ago:
>
> mistakes were made, and to that end Reuven and I are literally in the
> process right now of crafting a proposal to the community that should go a
> long way to begin the process of repair. We will post it [Sunday] morning
> (good to sleep on ideas before sending them out).
>
> To that end, I ask that everyone in the community begin thinking about their
> conceptions of where the CCIF can go from here. Our letter will clarify a
> few things that we owe to all, but mainly it will propose a way forward and
> then open the forum to discussion."
>

> twitter.com/silverguru- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -