Re: [deltacloud-devel] Scope of Deltacloud (cooperation with REST-*)

[Sam Johnston]

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:

http://groups.google.com/group/reststar-board

I'd like to have our discussion archived.

I joined the list before (that makes three of us) and am copying it now - let's follow up over there.

Sam

[Bill Burke]

Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Bill Burke <bbu...@redhat.com
> <mailto: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?

And SSO means? (means single sign on to me).

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/).
>

Not really interested in being another "Cloud" initiative. "Cloud" (or
even "Grid" for that matter) is way to broad and all encompassing to
have much brand recognition and focus for what we're trying to
accomplish with REST-*.

Sounds too much like the Apache model to me. I'm not a big fan of
purely merit based organizations. They tend to lack direction and
focus. At least that's my experience.

--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com