Re: Microsoft Moving Toward an Open Process on Cloud Computing Interoperability

[Reuven Cohen]

 I have received no less then 100 emails and voicemails about Microsoft blog post this morning. See > http://bit.ly/10UHgP

Let me say, we've been in active discussions with Microsoft about the manifesto which has literally come together in the last couple weeks.  It is unfortunate they feel this way. Microsoft was among the first to review the manifesto. Their 2:28 AM pre-announcement of the manifesto was a complete surprise given our conversations. If Microsoft is truly committed to an open cloud ecosystem, this document provides a perfect opportunity to publicly state it.

Reuven
CCIF Instigator, Founder Enomaly Inc
www.cloudforum.org

[gary mazzaferro]

Microsoft is a fairly large organization where groups can operate with a fair amount of autonomy and compartmentalization as well as having multiple groups with similar objectives. It may not be suprising to find different opinions in that type of organization. Unless of course it was the same team...

 

-gary

[Bert Armijo]

Trying to create openness through secrecy seems a bit inverted Reuven. Sounds more like someone’s trying to head off another’s technology with a “sign or be excluded” maneuver. We’ve been in cloud since the beginning, have sponsored cloud camps, have attended the CCIF but I have no idea what you’re up to. Why is that, and why should I or anyone else who’s in the dark about your big announcement continue to attend???

[groupalias v]

Two things come to mind.

There is nothing open about the Open Cloud Manifesto. Its an industry alliance or an attempt at it, which is fine. I really want to see something happening on that front rather than what we have currently have. But if it got MS worked up then it probably has something  It certainly piques my interest about it.

As far as this group goes - so far I see this group gets worked up on some blog postings by Reuven. We don't need a mailing list for that, we can point our browsers to his blog directly. So far all I see is something happening behind the scenes and even that is posted to the group when some one asks about the status. I definitely understand that it is beneficial for Reuven and his company to form an industry alliance than crowd sourcing the discussion. I would be fine with it but it should be said out loud at some point. But it definitely looks like this group is formed just to discuss Reuven's blog :)

[Jesse L Silver]

I do see your point man. But truly, I assure you that the CCIF never lobbied for or intended to build a document or agreement in secret. We are working day and night to straddle the line between the needs of large corporations, without whose support a document such as this would have very little influence or force, and the rights of the wider community.

In response to the community's genuine and rightful concern, we are going to spend the coming days working as hard as possible to urge an agreement among the companies involved that, going forward, discussions such as the one that led to the Open Cloud Manifesto will proceed out in the sunshine.

[Alexis Richardson]

Then - with all due respect - you could put the draft on Sam's wiki.
Make it public?

[Jesse L Silver]

Alexis - I would do it in a second! We would have done it last week. The fact is, we aren't in charge of the draft, and many of the companies who are signatories would not be happy with this development. Can we just agree that this didn't get handled well, wait until Monday to see the final text, and THEN comment, amend, pick it apart.

[Alexis Richardson]

Sure. But.

I don't understand why only people who are invited, get to discuss the
draft. This puts power into the hands of the inviters primarily, and
the invited secondarily. Both outcomes seem to be me to very wrong.

At the same time, I am not impatient. I just don't get this
competitive rush to arrogate invention. None of us invented cloud
computing. We are just noise. By all means applaud but there is no
benefit in clapping the loudest.

So please stop telling us what to expect, or why we should get more
excited because someone else might be next week.

We all want the same thing - I think? At least based on Ruv's last
missive. I know you are working really hard to make stuff happen.
Please don't take this as personal criticism.

alexis

[Alexis Richardson]

Sorry "seem to me to be very wrong". argh... late here.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Alexis Richardson

[Jesse L Silver]

Fine - criticism taken. You're essentially shooting the messenger here, Alexis, but I understand how you feel.

And btw, today's events proves we are not just "noise", this community is the future of cloud computing.

[Andy Edmonds]

@alexis +1

Andy
andy.edmonds.be

[Alexis Richardson]

I don't mean to shoot anyone.

If you are the messenger, then who else is there?

[Jesse L Silver]

I'm not pointing fingers, but no one at the CCIF lobbied for secrecy. It just happened to be what the situation demanded when we were asked to participate.

Ultimately, we will move past this and are dead set on openness in all activities we initiate. In the next day or two, I'll be posting a draft of our schedule for next week's CCIF meeting, so the community can hack at it and make suggestions.

[gary mazzaferro]

When is the "red book" going to be released ? I would like to see it before the NYC event. I'd like to judge if the trip to ny is worth my time and effort. 

 

-gary
 

[Ezra Zygmuntowicz]

I'm sorry but please don't call this the "Open" cloud manifesto as it
is anything but open period. Mostly hot air form where I sit.

-Ezra

Ezra Zygmuntowicz
e...@engineyard.com

[Mazin Yousif]

For full transparency, after posting the draft and names of those involved, you need to make it clear based on what these folks were chosen to participate.

 

Mazin

[tluk...@exnihilum.com]

>> "working day and night to straddle the line between the needs of large corporations .. and the rights of the wider community."

Jesse,

Can you please explain why you (or your employer) feel that the "needs" of large corporations have to be in conflict with and opposed to the "rights" of the community?

It sounds like you (or your employer) think that smaller vendors are just a pain-in-the-ass that need to be managed and/or tolerated. IMHO the most brilliant work and innovative, disruptive thinking and technology in the computer industry has ALWAYS come from the individuals and small teams that inhabit "the wider community" and not from "large corporations".

So why would you (or your employer) think that the best ideas and thinking on Cloud Interoperability and Portability can not or would not come from someone you (or your employer) has never even heard of - YET. Sadly, this comment is not the first sign of disrespect I've witnessed here for anyone other than big companies, Cloud celebrities or close friends of those celebrities.

TL

-----Original Message-----
From: "Jesse L Silver" [silve...@gmail.com]
Date: 03/26/2009 06:27 PM
To: cloud...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Microsoft Moving Toward an Open Process on Cloud Computing Interoperability

I do see your point man. But truly, I assure you that the CCIF never lobbied for or intended to build a document or agreement in secret. We are working day and night to straddle the line between the needs of large corporations, without whose support a document such as this would have very little influence or force, and the rights of the wider community.

In response to the communitys genuine and rightful concern, we are going to spend the coming days working as hard as possible to urge an agreement among the companies involved that, going forward, discussions such as the one that led to the Open Cloud Manifesto will proceed out in the sunshine.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:57 PM, groupalias v <grou...@gmail.com> wrote:
Two things come to mind.

There is nothing open about the Open Cloud Manifesto. Its an industry alliance or an attempt at it, which is fine. I really want to see something happening on that front rather than what we have currently have. But if it got MS worked up then it probably has something It certainly piques my interest about it.

As far as this group goes - so far I see this group gets worked up on some blog postings by Reuven. We dont need a mailing list for that, we can point our browsers to his blog directly. So far all I see is something happening behind the scenes and even that is posted to the group when some one asks about the status. I definitely understand that it is beneficial for Reuven and his company to form an industry alliance than crowd sourcing the discussion. I would be fine with it but it should be said out loud at some point. But it definitely looks like this group is formed just to discuss Reuvens blog :)

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Bert Armijo <be...@3tera.com> wrote:

Trying to create openness through secrecy seems a bit inverted Reuven. Sounds more like someone’s trying to head off another’s technology with a “sign or be excluded” maneuver. We’ve been in cloud since the beginning, have sponsored cloud camps, have attended the CCIF but I have no idea what you’re up to. Why is that, and why should I or anyone else who’s in the dark about your big announcement continue to attend???





From:cloud...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cloud...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Reuven Cohen
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:00 AM
To: cloud...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Microsoft Moving Toward an Open Process on Cloud Computing Interoperability





I have received no less then 100 emails and voicemails about Microsoft blog post this morning. See > http://bit.ly/10UHgP

Let me say, weve been in active discussions with Microsoft about the manifesto which has literally come together in the last couple weeks. It is unfortunate they feel this way. Microsoft was among the first to review the manifesto. Their 2:28 AM pre-announcement of the manifesto was a complete surprise given our conversations. If Microsoft is truly committed to an open cloud ecosystem, this document provides a perfect opportunity to publicly state it.

[Jesse L Silver]

No disrespect for "anyone other than big companies" TL. I'm sorry you read my comments that way.

Instead of looking for someone inside this group to attack, let's be excited about the opportunities this manifesto will bring us. Cloud Standards, interop and portability will soon be at the center of the cloud conversation. This is BIG news man!! Let's rejoice, not attack.

[Anne Thomas Manes]

Jesse -- I don't think you understand the impact of the hypocrisy of
it all. It has cast a dark cloud over the effort. If the manifesto was
created in secret and its authors used a "sign as-is or be excluded"
methodology to create it, then I'm not particularly interested in it.
I suspect I'm not the only person that feels this way. The BIG NEWS is
the hypocrisy, not the manifesto.

Anne Thomas Manes
Burton Group

[Jesse L Silver]

Hi Anne -

Look, I get it. And, though I don't speak for them, I am sure the other folks participating in the process get it.

I suppose the message we haven't gotten across very clearly is: there was NO "sign as-is or be excluded" methodology. That is pure fiction, bizarre really, and the press picked it up uncritically because it's a scintillating narrative. I don't get why no one is asking this question: Why the heck would anyone exclude input? Microsoft was ASKED to engage in a discussion, and instead of doing so, Martin attacked. We've been saying this ALL DAY yet no one seems to be listening. So since you have decided to believe Martin instead of me, I am going to quit trying to convince.

[Mark A. Carlson]

I think what I am seeing mostly is naivety.

Look, if you want to make a splash and a point about openness
using tradition means (i.e. press and analysts), then you have
to have something newsworthy *and* you can't reveal it before
the "launch" date, or else the press won't cover it.

It's a difficult task to do properly and without making enemies.
All sorts of agendas are *read into* the effort, even if that was
not the intention. In this kind of atmosphere, making last minute
changes, approved by all the signatories is all but impossible.

-- mark

--

Mark A. Carlson Sr. Architect Systems Group Phone x69559 / 303-223-6139 Email Mark.C...@Sun.COM

[Paul Miller]

Absolutely.

Read the document next week, and judge it on its merits.

Paul

---

Dr Paul Miller

Founder, The Cloud of Data

skype: cloudofdata tel: +44 7769 740083 http://cloudofdata.com

[Jeremy Day]

All,

I don't doubt that the document will be an excellent achievement and that there will be a number of large technology companies behind it.  Great and much needed consensus, but there does not seem to be anything open about the process of putting it together, and to suggest that it has been an open process is to partake in more than a little hypocrisy.

Jeremy

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

Sorry - I don't agree.

Why not just bring it here now so we can judge it on it's merits and
provide open feedback? It can still be presented by whoever feels
that it needs to be presented to whomever that person feels it needs
to be presented to.

A step like that would put to rest any debate about openness.

geir

[Paul Miller]

I don't think anyone's suggesting the process of assembling the first draft of the document was open, so there's no hypocrisy on that count.

Open is, undeniably, the way to go. It's an unfortunate fact of life that some back room work is sometimes needed to kick start things, no matter how open they end up being. This is especially true when big companies with competing interests get involved, as they tend to need more than a little reassurance and coddling...

Paul

[Sam Johnston]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Mark A. Carlson <Mark.C...@sun.com> wrote:

I think what I am seeing mostly is naivety.

Look, if you want to make a splash and a point about openness
using tradition means (i.e. press and analysts), then you have
to have something newsworthy *and* you can't reveal it before
the "launch" date, or else the press won't cover it.

It's a difficult task to do properly and without making enemies.
All sorts of agendas are *read into* the effort, even if that was
not the intention. In this kind of atmosphere, making last minute
changes, approved by all the signatories is all but impossible.

-- mark

The question is more a case of why Microsoft were invited at the last minute (and indeed why they were invited at all) when other stakeholders on this list, even people like Sun's own Tim Bray were excluded. As has been said before, it shifts power to the invitee and even moreso to the inviter and as far as committee rules and committees go, this is an ethical lapse of the highest order.

It all looks to be a lot more about shifting power away from users (where it belongs) and (all bar one) smaller vendors, concentrating it with a handful of (apparently arbitrarily selected) incumbents; at the cost of the many for the benefit of the few.

I can't help but to notice for example the connection between Reuven "going out for a few beer(sic)" with IBM's Director of Cloud Standards, Dirk Nicol on Monday and Dirk subsequently being revealed by CRN to be the registrant of the "under consturction(sic)" opencloudmanifesto.org domain.

I think the calls to publish it already are justified and am obviously not the only one wondering who "several of the largest technology companies and organizations" actually are and what the criteria for inclusion was. I tend to agree with Anne below and feel it's a shame that such a great opportunity to allay the fears of potential adopters has been essentially squandered. The only thing worse than the handling leading up to Microsoft's whistleblowing looks to be the handling afterwards.

Looking forward to answers (and of course publication of the manifesto itself).

Sam

[tluk...@exnihilum.com]

Again with the "big companies" need to be catered to.

We're a community. Accepting and defending this as a "fact of life" within our community makes as much sense as any dragging in any other prejudice or class favoritism that ever existed in society. If it's true, the only reason that it's true is that people like you and Jesse just accept it - and worse, try to sell it to those of us that don't.

TL

-----Original Message-----
From: "Paul Miller" [paul.m...@gmail.com]
Date: 03/27/2009 08:44 AM
To: cloud...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Microsoft Moving Toward an Open Process on Cloud Computing Interoperability

I don't think anyone's suggesting the process of assembling the first draft of the document was open, so there's no hypocrisy on that count.

Open is, undeniably, the way to go. It's an unfortunate fact of life that some back room work is sometimes needed to kick start things, no matter how open they end up being. This is especially true when big companies with competing interests get involved, as they tend to need more than a little reassurance and coddling...


Paul

On 27 Mar 2009, at 12:28, Jeremy Day wrote:
All,

I don't doubt that the document will be an excellent achievement and that there will be a number of large technology companies behind it. Great and much needed consensus, but there does not seem to be anything open about the process of putting it together, and to suggest that it has been an open process is to partake in more than a little hypocrisy.

Jeremy

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:18 AM, Paul Miller <paul.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
Absolutely.



Read the document next week, and judge it on its merits.


Paul


---
Dr Paul Miller
Founder, The Cloud of Data


skype: cloudofdata tel: +44 7769 740083 http://cloudofdata.com

On 27 Mar 2009, at 12:14, Mark A. Carlson wrote:

I think what I am seeing mostly is naivety.

Look, if you want to make a splash and a point about openness
using tradition means (i.e. press and analysts), then you have
to have something newsworthy *and* you can't reveal it before
the "launch" date, or else the press won't cover it.

It's a difficult task to do properly and without making enemies.
All sorts of agendas are *read into* the effort, even if that was
not the intention. In this kind of atmosphere, making last minute
changes, approved by all the signatories is all but impossible.

-- mark

[Paul Miller]

Silly me. I'd forgotten that the best way to achieve things was to reject everything that has gone before and start again.

And there was me thinking the best way to change things was from the inside, bringing incumbents along as we go.

Oh well. Forget that. Everyone to the barricades, and let's start hurling rocks. It's clearly more productive.

Big companies are part of this community too. A big part, with a huge gravitational pull. Work with them, not against them.

[Reuven Cohen]

Let's put this into perspective for a moment. Regardless of what the manifesto says (If you follow this forum or read my blog you've got a pretty good idea). The goal of the open cloud manifesto is to bring wide scale industry attention to open interoperable Cloud Computing. In this goal we have succeeded even before the manifesto has been published.

 In one move, Microsoft has provided more visibility to our cloud interoperability effort then all our previous efforts combined. For this reason alone we need thank Microsoft. Moving forward I believe Microsoft will continue to be a major partner in our activities including recently signing on as a global sponsor for our Cloud Camps. Who knows maybe they'll sign on to manifesto too.

Reuven
 

[Chris Marino]

I'm horrified as I see how this is unfolding....so much ignorance and emotion.

I'd like to simply inject a dose of reality here: Cloud Computing Interoperability is a long way off. This document (which I have not seen, nor invited to review) will only serve to highlight that. If you thought there was a lot of debate around 'What is Cloud Computing' wait until the interoperability issues get discussed.

I can't find the link from the prior thread on this forum, but an important point was made that 'most vendors don't want to support portability' (paraphrasing) is still going to be an unspoke consideration for any 'standard' that gets discussed.

A worrisome aspect for me in all this is the conspicuous lack of involvement from users.  A few 'user proxies' perhaps, but this all seems overwhelmingly vendor driven.  The road is littered with the failed attempts for standards driven by the needs of vendors.

I'm not a frequent poster on this forum because I'm afraid my comments would just seem too negative and/or skeptical. Which is a shame, because i really do want this to succeed. Unfortunately, this recent dust up only confirms my worst fears.

CM

[Sam Johnston]

Chris,

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Chris Marino <christophe...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not a frequent poster on this forum because I'm afraid my comments would just seem too negative and/or skeptical. Which is a shame, because i really do want this to succeed. Unfortunately, this recent dust up only confirms my worst fears.

You shouldn't let that stop you - a healthy dose of reality never hurt anyone.

I could not agree with you more about the user-centric nature of cloud computing and the absence of the conspicuous absence of the number one stakeholder from these discussions.

It's no secret that I've been an advocate of an open community consensus based approach to standards development and I am pleased to see momentum very rapidly building behind the OGF OCCI working group. This isn't perfect but it's a good deal closer to an open community consensus than the backroom deals revealed yesterday (I'm pleased to see Reuven was NOT the mastermind of these by the way).

We still have some way to go, but let's not lose sight of the fact that cloud computing is finally an opportunity for IT to empower end users rather than control them.

Sam

[tluk...@exnihilum.com]

>> "Work with them, not against them"

Again the "with them or against them" nonsense. Why is my simple message not getting through?

I'm not attacking individuals in our group or the large companies that they represent. I'm attacking the thinking and attitude (and behavior that goes along with it) that "big companies" and the grassroots, larger community cannot simply work together, side by side as peers.

I don't think it's "naive" to expect that this group can work effectively without a caste system, and can value and respect everyone's potential to think and contribute equally.

TL

-----Original Message-----
From: "Paul Miller" [paul.m...@gmail.com]

Date: 03/27/2009 10:28 AM
To: cloud...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Microsoft Moving Toward an Open Process on Cloud Computing Interoperability

Silly me. I'd forgotten that the best way to achieve things was to reject everything that has gone before and start again.

And there was me thinking the best way to change things was from the inside, bringing incumbents along as we go.


Oh well. Forget that. Everyone to the barricades, and let's start hurling rocks. It's clearly more productive.


Big companies are part of this community too. A big part, with a huge gravitational pull. Work with them, not against them.

On 27 Mar 2009, at 13:00, tluk...@exnihilum.com wrote:
Again with the "big companies" need to be catered to.

We're a community. Accepting and defending this as a "fact of life" within our community makes as much sense as any dragging in any other prejudice or class favoritism that ever existed in society. If it's true, the only reason that it's true is that people like you and Jesse just accept it - and worse, try to sell it to those of us that don't.

TL


-----Original Message-----
From: "Paul Miller" [paul.m...@gmail.com]

Date: 03/27/2009 08:44 AM
To: cloud...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Microsoft Moving Toward an Open Process on Cloud Computing Interoperability

I don't think anyone's suggesting the process of assembling the first draft of the document was open, so there's no hypocrisy on that count.

Open is, undeniably, the way to go. It's an unfortunate fact of life that some back room work is sometimes needed to kick start things, no matter how open they end up being. This is especially true when big companies with competing interests get involved, as they tend to need more than a little reassurance and coddling...


Paul

On 27 Mar 2009, at 12:28, Jeremy Day wrote:
All,

I don't doubt that the document will be an excellent achievement and that there will be a number of large technology companies behind it. Great and much needed consensus, but there does not seem to be anything open about the process of putting it together, and to suggest that it has been an open process is to partake in more than a little hypocrisy.

Jeremy

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:18 AM, Paul Miller <paul.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
Absolutely.



Read the document next week, and judge it on its merits.


Paul


---
Dr Paul Miller
Founder, The Cloud of Data


skype: cloudofdata tel: +44 7769 740083 http://cloudofdata.com

On 27 Mar 2009, at 12:14, Mark A. Carlson wrote:

I think what I am seeing mostly is naivety.

Look, if you want to make a splash and a point about openness
using tradition means (i.e. press and analysts), then you have
to have something newsworthy *and* you can't reveal it before
the "launch" date, or else the press won't cover it.

It's a difficult task to do properly and without making enemies.
All sorts of agendas are *read into* the effort, even if that was
not the intention. In this kind of atmosphere, making last minute
changes, approved by all the signatories is all but impossible.

-- mark

[Stuart Charlton]

+1 , Chris.

Guys, honestly, it's not that hard to understand.   Nearly every standards effort, nearly every open source project, nearly any creative endeavor --  brings together a trusted group to create an increment of something, and THEN, might open it up.     It's very common, it's not abnormal.    

There was no ethical lapse here, and I think it's profoundly self-aggrandizing, not to mention absurd, to suggest such a thing.       Are you now going to complain that the Agile Manifesto was an ethical lapse because you weren't part of the *invite-only* workshop that crafted it several years ago?     If Marx & Engels "crowdsourced" their manifesto, would it have been improved? ;-)

Power is a continually transferrable relationship in a market economy.   Having it "belong to the users" is just as mistaken as having it "belong to the vendors".

Stu

[Reuven Cohen]

Well said.

r/c

[Diego Parrilla Santamaría]

Funny to hear of a 'Open Cloud Manifesto' where only a 'private' and
'selected' group of members are working on it.

It's dead before arriving. But who cares... Ideas (good or bad) cost
zero nowadays. The difference comes on how you implement them.

Diego Parrilla Santamaría
Business Development Manager & Product Technology Strategist at Abiquo, Corp.
+34 649 94 43 29
skype:diegoparrilla
www.abiquo.com
www.nubeblog.com

[Patrick J Kerpan]

+1, Stu

Patrick Kerpan

[Stuart Charlton]

Right. You know, there's another joke I heard, about a "FreeBSD"
where only a 'private' and 'selected' group of members have commit
access. Man, that's not Free! I heard some fruit company decided
to solve the problem by creating their own version called "Darwin",
except, I can't get commit access to that one either! Wow!

(Sorry, I'll stop now.)

Stu

[gary mazzaferro]

Well, I have to disagree with that position in this case.

 

Ruv, did a great job of advocating an open process for this effort, then it went secret, now there is an unknown board of contributors to a manifesto, that is serving who ?

 

I'm personally very disappointed to see secret committees in this "open" advocacy group. This is a sore point for many of the smaller players which were sold one bill of good and replaced by another, in the US its called a "bait and switch".

 

Outside of a few areas, innovation rarely comes from large companies. And even then, much of the innovation is paid for by one government or another with research grants. 

 

I don't believe the goal for CCIF is any sort of innovation, but has become an effort for a few organizations for form an alliance and position themselves.... to what end ?  Possibly monopolize the business ? or build confidence in a consumer base;  to ensure "their" companies will have "favored nation status"during the expansion of the market; or is it to produce an altruistic document that will be beneficial to most.

 

The uncomfortable feeling by voiced by this community is not trivial. And, the tactic of grand announcement in NYC further reinforces the alienation of the smaller cloud players, especially to the financial sector customers where some of us are targeting.

 

If the effort is truly for the benefit of this group,

1) You should release the document to group members early. 

2) No company should have their name associated with the document, including press releases

3) All members should have equal credit  

 

-gary mazzaferro
almost out of stealth mode

[Sam Johnston]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Stuart Charlton <stuartc...@gmail.com> wrote:

There was no ethical lapse here, and I think it's profoundly self-aggrandizing, not to mention absurd, to suggest such a thing.

Arrogating others' intiatives, denying it and then disavowing it when it explodes seems far more "profoundly self-aggrandizing" than calling into question the ethics of forming a secret cabal to me, but that's just my opinion. I also note that the reactions of those on the inside are unsurprisingly far more tepid than the rest of us on the outside.

We've got all of next week to pick apart the document (as if its contents matter now) but as one example of why it's hardly surprising that Amazon and Microsoft might reject it, the document (clearly written by private cloud vendors) talks about "private clouds" half a dozen times in as many pages.

What I fear most though is that this manifesto is just the tip of the iceberg.

Sam

[Geva Perry]

Just to make sure everyone is aware of it by now. I published the full
open cloud manifesto on my blog:
http://gevaperry.typepad.com/main/2009/03/the-open-cloud-manifesto-much-ado-about-nothing.html

[Diego Parrilla Santamaría]

Gentleman, this discussion started yesterday and it's already boring me...

I have just read the manifesto, and does not differ a lot of most of
the topics we can read in marketing stuff.

The Manifesto affair is over for me.

Diego Parrilla Santamaría
Business Development Manager & Product Technology Strategist at Abiquo, Corp.
+34 649 94 43 29
skype:diegoparrilla
www.abiquo.com

530 University Ave, Palo Alto, CA, USA
Consell de Cent 296, Barcelona, ES

[Mazin Yousif]

It is not the manifesto itself; it is the way it was handled.
I have done and led standards before. It was clear to me that few people
working for few days or weeks will in no way produce anything with deep
technical contents - more or less a white paper.

But I agree this has been hashed more than what it deserves

Mazin

-----Original Message-----
From: cloud...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cloud...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Diego Parrilla Santamaría
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:23 PM
To: cloud...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Microsoft Moving Toward an Open Process on Cloud Computing
Interoperability

[Stuart Charlton]

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 27, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Sam Johnston <sa...@samj.net> wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Stuart Charlton <stuartc...@gmail.com> wrote:

There was no ethical lapse here, and I think it's profoundly self-aggrandizing, not to mention absurd, to suggest such a thing.

Arrogating others' intiatives, denying it and then disavowing it when it explodes seems far more "profoundly self-aggrandizing" than calling into question the ethics of forming a secret cabal to me, but that's just my opinion.

I tend to agree that there was quite a lot of questionable behaviour there.  

I think Microsoft has justifiable reasons for rejecting the manifesto-  they probably wanted time to put more of their stamp on it , and I hazard a guess that due to last minute disorganization that didn't happen.  But disrespecting the embargo makes this look less a principled stance than a political move.

I also think you're using overly flamboyant, melodramatic language to describe the situation.   

I also note that the reactions of those on the inside are unsurprisingly far more tepid than the rest of us on the outside.

Granted.  

We've got all of next week to pick apart the document (as if its contents matter now) but as one example of why it's hardly surprising that Amazon and Microsoft might reject it, the document (clearly written by private cloud vendors) talks about "private clouds" half a dozen times in as many pages.

Microsoft has publicly stated, on multiple occaisions, that they're supporters of private clouds and may actually release Azure software to enable them.

And Amazon has invested in at least one company that enables private clouds, so I think they're ok with the idea too.

What I fear most though is that this manifesto is just the tip of the iceberg.

In terms of big vendor politics?  Absolutely! 

Cheers

Stu

Sam

[tluk...@exnihilum.com]

>> "I think Microsoft has justifiable reasons for rejecting the manifesto- they probably wanted time to put more of their stamp on it"

Or maybe they were just unwilling to take even partial responsibility (blame) for offering what amounts to a poorly written article as a credible working document for Cloud computing.

Will somebody PLEASE show me how stupid I am and point out to me one measly sentence in that Manifesto (even describing it as such now seems ridiculous) that is anything more than an obvious re-statement of what's been said many times over? I cannot believe that all of the smart people in this group are actually accepting such tripe as a work worthy of industry movers and shakers.

TL

-----Original Message-----
From: "Stuart Charlton" [stuartc...@gmail.com]
Date: 03/27/2009 07:23 PM
To: "cloud...@googlegroups.com" <cloud...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Moving Toward an Open Process on Cloud Computing Interoperability

[Stuart Charlton]

Statements are dime a dozen; who says them on the other hand, is
what's interesting. I think the point of the manifesto is the names
behind it. It's not much, sure, but it's something.

I can guarantee you that the vast majority of cloud computing
customers don't read this mailing list, nor will they ever. Those
same customers will, however, notice when large vendors stand up with
a document describing a set of principles, no matter how obvious or
boring. At minimum, they'll read a magazine article pointing to it,
or a Gartner analyst report offering an interpretation of it.

This industry doesn't exactly have a great track record of working
together, so I'm not sure why you'd expect more.

Stu

[ewindisch]

> I cannot believe that all of the smart people in this group are actually accepting such tripe as a

I don't think the idea was to come up with something new and
inventive, but to make sure that all the players at the table are
playing from the same deck and recognizing the same rules in a
formalized fashion. While you might have read these ideas before, or
thought them yourself, that was only in an informal context, not as a
declaration that one can stand behind and say, "This is our mission,
our goal, and the rules of the game."

In this regard, I think the idea of this document is good. Its weak,
yes, but it can be a basis for future work. While I'm not happy with
the way it was presented or produced, and I am still waiting to see
what happens Monday, but if this is taken to a vote on Thursday and
ratified by the members of the CCIF, I won't be terribly disturbed by
it, and think that it will be a good *step* towards making real
progress. I'd rather endorse a mediocre document that at least
embodies most of the relevant ideas and goals that we're all seeking
than to endorse nothing at all and sit on our thumbs another six
months without any progress at all.

On the other hand, if Ruv and others decide to run the CCIF as a
representative republic and agree upon this themselves, I still won't
be entirely upset, as long as they let us know when they're holding
the elections. Finally, if they ratify this in a secret meeting and
don't hold elections, I imagine that the CCIF and those behind the
wheel will no longer hold much clout in the cloud community.

--
Eric Windisch

[tluk...@exnihilum.com]

OK, Stu.. so what I hear you saying is to disregard the quality of the content because all that the Manifesto represents is something that the industry and media can point to and say: "Oh, look! They're playing nice together!"

I can see your point. At least that makes more sense than my getting crazy thinking that everyone here really believes that the document has any other significant value, or accomplishes anything other than what you're saying it does. Thanks for sharing.

TL


-----Original Message-----
From: "Stuart Charlton" [stuartc...@gmail.com]
Date: 03/27/2009 11:08 PM
To: cloud...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Microsoft Moving Toward an Open Process on Cloud Computing Interoperability

Statements are dime a dozen; who says them on the other hand, is
what's interesting. I think the point of the manifesto is the names
behind it. It's not much, sure, but it's something.

I can guarantee you that the vast majority of cloud computing
customers don't read this mailing list, nor will they ever. Those
same customers will, however, notice when large vendors stand up with
a document describing a set of principles, no matter how obvious or
boring. At minimum, they'll read a magazine article pointing to it,
or a Gartner analyst report offering an interpretation of it.

This industry doesn't exactly have a great track record of working
together, so I'm not sure why you'd expect more.

Stu





On 27-Mar-09, at 7:51 PM, tluk...@exnihilum.com wrote:

> >> "I think Microsoft has justifiable reasons for rejecting the
> manifesto- they probably wanted time to put more of their stamp on it"
>
> Or maybe they were just unwilling to take even partial
> responsibility (blame) for offering what amounts to a poorly written
> article as a credible working document for Cloud computing.
>
> Will somebody PLEASE show me how stupid I am and point out to me one
> measly sentence in that Manifesto (even describing it as such now
> seems ridiculous) that is anything more than an obvious re-statement

> of what's been said many times over? I cannot believe that all of

> the smart people in this group are actually accepting such tripe as

[Bert Armijo]

>>> I also think you're using overly flamboyant, melodramatic language
to describe the situation.

Let me make sure I understand the facts then, because I've probably missed a hundred or so emails in the thread.

1. The organizer of a supposedly open group to promote cloud interoperability works behind the scenes with a select group of companies to produce a marketing statement and release it to the press a couple days before the group meets.

2. Despite hundreds of posts a week on mail groups and blogs, as far as I can tell there was no intention of sharing it with the group before the release . . . until Microsoft posted an objection that they were asked to sign the document "as is" and maintain it's secrecy.

4. Albeit it temporarily, a group member was banned for objecting.

5. Despite what are clearly a LOT of objections from the group, rather than shelve the document it seems to be going out as scheduled.

IMHO if we're to achieve anything in this group, then a little flamboyant language is probably called for.

[Stuart Charlton]

I would agree with your assessment , if not for one fact (to my
knowledge):

The CCIF did not seem to lead or instigate this manifesto; the CCIF
leadership was asked to be part of it, on behalf of their companies,
or perhaps on behalf of the CCIF (that I don't know).

Rather, a large vendor instigated this manifesto, but would prefer to
remain in the background so as to not dissuade adoption.
See:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10206118-56.html

Certainly there is something to be learned here, regarding the CCIF
leadership signing on to a document without consulting their
members. Understandably, that would be hard to do in an open forum
when there's a press embargo in effect, but then, why risk an uproar
and not just wait until Monday? I don't think there was ill intent
here, but certainly some questionably thought out behavior.

But, aside from this, the interactions with Microsoft arguably are a
separate case of "big vendor politics". I think that Ruv & Jesse
mean well, but they are rooks & pawns in a larger chess game (as many
of us are).

Cheers
Stu

[Greg Pfister]

On Mar 27, 3:35 pm, "Mazin Yousif" <myousif...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is not the manifesto itself; it is the way it was handled.

Agree, but I think the error is actually in the way it was parsed.
It's not an

(open (cloud manifesto))

it's an

(open cloud) manifesto

All this fuss over a parsing error.

Or, rather, phrasing that invited a parsing error. Just calling it a
"Manifesto for Open Clouds" would have avoided a lot of heat. Or at
least short-circuited it.

Greg Pfister
http://perilsofparallel.blogspot.com/

> I have done and led standards before. It was clear to me that few people
> working for few days or weeks will in no way produce anything with deep
> technical contents - more or less a white paper.
>
> But I agree this has been hashed more than what it deserves
>
> Mazin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cloud...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cloud...@googlegroups.com] On
>
> Behalf Of Diego Parrilla Santamaría
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:23 PM
> To: cloud...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Microsoft Moving Toward an Open Process on Cloud Computing
> Interoperability
>
> Gentleman, this discussion started yesterday and it's already boring me...
>
> I have just read the manifesto, and does not differ a lot of most of
> the topics we can read in marketing stuff.
>
> The Manifesto affair is over for me.
>
> Diego Parrilla Santamaría
> Business Development Manager & Product Technology Strategist at Abiquo,
> Corp.
> +34 649 94 43 29
> skype:diegoparrillawww.abiquo.com
>
> 530 University Ave, Palo Alto, CA, USA
> Consell de Cent 296, Barcelona, ES
>

> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Geva Perry <gevape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just to make sure everyone is aware of it by now. I published the full
> > open cloud manifesto on my blog:
>

> http://gevaperry.typepad.com/main/2009/03/the-open-cloud-manifesto-mu...
> about-nothing.html

[Gregg Wonderly]

On Mar 27, 2009, at 6:21 AM, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:

>
> Jesse -- I don't think you understand the impact of the hypocrisy of
> it all. It has cast a dark cloud over the effort. If the manifesto was
> created in secret and its authors used a "sign as-is or be excluded"
> methodology to create it, then I'm not particularly interested in it.
> I suspect I'm not the only person that feels this way. The BIG NEWS is
> the hypocrisy, not the manifesto.

> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:52 AM, Jesse L Silver
> <silve...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No disrespect for "anyone other than big companies" TL. I'm sorry
>> you read
>> my comments that way.
>>
>> Instead of looking for someone inside this group to attack, let's
>> be excited
>> about the opportunities this manifesto will bring us. Cloud
>> Standards,
>> interop and portability will soon be at the center of the cloud
>> conversation. This is BIG news man!! Let's rejoice, not attack.

There is no such thing as open standards in cloud computing which do
not involve specific technologies. It's the "election" of these
technologies which the community needs the most freedom and
opportunity to participate in. Suggesting that everyone wait and
make comments is even more of an "We're better than you are" statement
than creating the manifesto in private was...sigh...

Doesn't matter how good it is, or who the participants were at this
point. You've handed out the hammers and nails and put yourselves in
the coffin, just waiting for the community to start hammering away
with their comments.

Gregg Wonderly