- occi-wg - lists.ogf.org

No Cloud Demo Call today
by Mark Carlson 22 Jun '10

22 Jun '10

Great job folks. A very successful demo this week at OGF. We'll keep churning on the demo leading up to our next showing in July at the SNIA Summer Symposium. We will start planning this at next week's meeting. -- mark

1 0

To all the members of the OCCI WG
by Steven Newhouse 18 Jun '10

18 Jun '10

This is perhaps one of the saddest days in the many years that OGF/GGF has acted as an umbrella for standards collaboration. As a community, we have never had to deal with a situation where an individual has repeatedly chosen to act in a divisive manner, ignoring the wishes and contributions of the majority of their colleagues in a working group, and ignoring the processes and rules that they themselves signed up to when they began contributing. This situation is not really about standards or about the rights and wrongs of IP policies, where cloud standards should evolve or whatever. It's about trust. It's about trusting your working group members to respect their colleagues and their colleagues' contributions and opinions, it's about trusting that someone will adhere to the express commitments they made when they joined the community. The chairs of the OCCI working group, and lots of members of the OGF community, have, on many occasions worked with Sam to try and achieve our shared goal of a well defined and implemented OCCI specification. This work is of fundamental importance to the OGF community and to the broader cloud community. Sam's contributions have been exceptional, but this specification is, and will be, the result of team work, of contributions ranging from active writing of the content, to debate about it that improves its quality, to implementation and so forth. This work is the result of the labours of many, no matter how great the contribution of one. It is the community that validates the work, that ensures its quality and that results in implementations. That community is the OCCI Working Group. It is not Sam Johnston. There are many imperfections in any and all communities or organisations, including OGF. But OGF remains one of the easiest within which to work, to collaborate, to validate and to implement. Sam has decided that it is not for him, which is his right, and which we respect. Regrettably the chairs of the group, with the unanimous approval and support of the community's elected leaders, have decided that Sam can no longer act as secretary of the working group. He has become impossible to work with. Nonetheless we thank him whole heartedly for his contributions, in spite of this situation. And, should he wish to continue to collaborate under the same set of rules that he and the rest of the working group signed up to when they joined, he will be most welcome. In the meantime the OCCI working group will continue, as will its work. We will do what is required to move our specification forward and we expect to reengage many past contributors who had found engagement difficult. The OGF community's leaders continue to stand in full support of the OCCI working group chairs, the working group they help lead and the work that this group undertakes. Let's move on! Steven Newhouse OGF Board Chairman

2 1

Fwd: How I tried to keep OCCI alive (and failed miserably)
by Sam Johnston 18 Jun '10

18 Jun '10

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sam Johnston <samj(a)samj.net> Date: Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:25 PM Subject: [Sam Johnston] How I tried to keep OCCI alive (and failed miserably) I was going to let this one slide but following a calumniatory missive<http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2010-June/001867.html>to his "followers" by the Open Cloud Computing Interface <http://www.occi-wg.org/>'s self-proclaimed "Founder & Chair", Sun refugee Thijs Metsch <http://twitter.com/befreax>, I have little choice but to respond in my defense (particularly as "The Chairs" were actively soliciting <http://twitter.com/dizz/status/16397788487>followup from others on-list in support). Basically a debate came to a head that has been brewing on- and off-list<http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2010-March/001703.html>for months regarding the Open Grid Forum (OGF) <http://www.ogf.org/>'s attempts to prevent me from licensing *my own contributions* (essentially the entire normative specification) under a permissive Creative Commons<http://www.creativecommons.org/>license (as an additional option to the restrictive OGF license <http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies_copyright.php>) and/or submit them to the IETF as previously agreed and as required by the OGF's own policies <http://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.1.pdf>. This was on the grounds that "*Most existing cloud computing specifications are available under CC licenses and I don't want to give anyone any excuses to choose another standard over ours*" and that the IETF has an excellent track record of producing high quality, interoperable, open specifications by way of a controlled yet open process. This should come as no surprise to those of you who know I am and will always be a huge supporter of open cloud, open source and open standards. The OGF process had failed to deliver after over 12 months of deadline extensions - the current spec is frozen in an incomplete state (lacking critical features like collections, search, billing, security, etc.) as a result of being prematurely pushed into public comment, nobody is happy with it (including myself), the community has all but dissipated (except for a few hard core supporters, previously including myself) and software purporting to implement it actually implements something completely different altogether (see for yourself<http://www.opennebula.org/documentation:rel1.4:occidd>). There was no light at the end of the tunnel and with both OGF29<http://www.gridforum.org/OGF29/>and IETF78 <http://www.ietf78.nl/home.html> just around the corner I yesterday took a desperate gamble to keep OCCI alive (as a CC-licensed spec, an IETF Internet-Draft or both). I confirmed that I was well within my rights to revoke any copyright, trademark and other rights previously granted (apparently it was amateur hour as OGF had failed to obtain an irrevocable license from me for my contributions) and volunteered to do so if restrictions on reuse by others weren't lifted and/or the specification submitted to the IETF process as agreed and required by their own policies. Thijs' colleague (and quite probably his boss at Platform Computing <http://www.platform.com/>), Christopher Smith (who doubles as OGF's outgoing VP of Standards) promptly responded, questioning my motives (which I can assure you are pure) and issuing a terse legal threat about how the "OGF will protect its rights" (against me over my own contributions no less). Thijs then followed up shortly after saying that they "see the secretary position as vacant from now on" and despite claims to the contrary<http://twitter.com/papaspyrou/status/16403013420>I really couldn't give a rats arse about a title bestowed upon me by a past-its-prime organisation struggling (and failing I might add) to maintain relevance. My only concern is that OCCI have a good home and if anything Platform have just captured the sort of control over it as VMware enjoy over DMTF/vCloud, with Thijs being the only remaining active editor. I thought that would be the end of it and had planned to let sleeping dogs lie until today's disgraceful, childish, coordinated and most of all completely unnecessary attack<http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2010-June/001867.html>on an unpaid volunteer that rambled about "constructive technical debate" and "community driven consensus", thanking me for my "meaningful contributions" but then calling on others to take up the pitchforks by "welcom[ing] any comments on this statement" on- or off-list. The attacks then continued on Twitter with another OGF official<http://twitter.com/papaspyrou> claiming that this "*was a consensus decision within a group of, say, 20+ active and many many (300+) passive participants*" (despite this being the first any of us had heard of it) and then calling my claims of copyright ownership "*genuine bullshit*" and report of an implementor instantly pulling out because they (and I quote) "*can't implement something if things are not stable*" a "*damn lie*", claiming I was "*pissed*" and should "*get over it and stop crying*" (needless to say they were promptly blocked).* * Anyway as you can see there's more to it than Thijs' diatribe would have you believe and so far as I'm concerned OCCI, at least in it's current form, is long since dead. I'm undecided as to whether to revoke OGF's licenses at this time but it probably doesn't matter as they agree I retain the copyrights and I think their chance of success is negligible - nobody in their right mind would implement the product of such a dysfunctional group and those who already did have long since found<http://blog.opennebula.org/?p=185> alternatives <http://blog.opennebula.org/?p=528>. That's not to say the specification won't live on in another form but now the OGF have decided to go nuclear it's going to have to be in a more appropriate forum - one that furthers the standard rather than constantly holding it back. *Protip*: None of this has anything to do with my current employer so let's keep it that way. -- Posted By Sam Johnston to Sam Johnston<http://samj.net/2010/06/how-i-tried-to-keep-occi-alive-and.html>at 6/17/2010 09:25:00 PM

2 3

Revocation of licenses
by Sam Johnston 18 Jun '10

18 Jun '10

In consideration of the subsequent responses from two OGF officials and in the absence of any form of remorse or apology for earlier personal attacks by another, any and all copyright, patent and/or trademark licenses that may have been previously extended relating to OCCI (specification, logo, etc.) are hereby revoked. All contributions continue to be available under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>license which guarantees freedoms that the OGF copyright <http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies_copyright.php> deliberately and unjustifiably restricts, including but not limited to the right to reuse. I wish you the best of luck in putting the specification to good use under these terms, but publish under another license at your peril. Kind regards, Sam

2 1

Re: [occi-wg] occi-wg Digest, Vol 15, Issue 12
by myousif100＠gmail.com 17 Jun '10

17 Jun '10

Y Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -----Original Message----- From: occi-wg-request(a)ogf.org Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:20:57 To: <occi-wg(a)ogf.org> Subject: occi-wg Digest, Vol 15, Issue 12 Send occi-wg mailing list submissions to occi-wg(a)ogf.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to occi-wg-request(a)ogf.org You can reach the person managing the list at occi-wg-owner(a)ogf.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of occi-wg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Fwd: How I tried to keep OCCI alive (and failed miserably) (Sam Johnston) 2. Re: How I tried to keep OCCI alive (and failed miserably) (Andre Merzky) 3. To all the members of the OCCI WG (Steven Newhouse) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:27:57 +0200 From: Sam Johnston <samj(a)samj.net> Subject: [occi-wg] Fwd: How I tried to keep OCCI alive (and failed miserably) To: occi-wg(a)ogf.org Message-ID: <AANLkTimuQcsf62e9NyvU2ffHbCfBnbRrXJAZMdwe6i2F(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sam Johnston <samj(a)samj.net> Date: Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:25 PM Subject: [Sam Johnston] How I tried to keep OCCI alive (and failed miserably) I was going to let this one slide but following a calumniatory missive<http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2010-June/001867.html>to his "followers" by the Open Cloud Computing Interface <http://www.occi-wg.org/>'s self-proclaimed "Founder & Chair", Sun refugee Thijs Metsch <http://twitter.com/befreax>, I have little choice but to respond in my defense (particularly as "The Chairs" were actively soliciting <http://twitter.com/dizz/status/16397788487>followup from others on-list in support). Basically a debate came to a head that has been brewing on- and off-list<http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2010-March/001703.html>for months regarding the Open Grid Forum (OGF) <http://www.ogf.org/>'s attempts to prevent me from licensing *my own contributions* (essentially the entire normative specification) under a permissive Creative Commons<http://www.creativecommons.org/>license (as an additional option to the restrictive OGF license <http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies_copyright.php>) and/or submit them to the IETF as previously agreed and as required by the OGF's own policies <http://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.1.pdf>. This was on the grounds that "*Most existing cloud computing specifications are available under CC licenses and I don't want to give anyone any excuses to choose another standard over ours*" and that the IETF has an excellent track record of producing high quality, interoperable, open specifications by way of a controlled yet open process. This should come as no surprise to those of you who know I am and will always be a huge supporter of open cloud, open source and open standards. The OGF process had failed to deliver after over 12 months of deadline extensions - the current spec is frozen in an incomplete state (lacking critical features like collections, search, billing, security, etc.) as a result of being prematurely pushed into public comment, nobody is happy with it (including myself), the community has all but dissipated (except for a few hard core supporters, previously including myself) and software purporting to implement it actually implements something completely different altogether (see for yourself<http://www.opennebula.org/documentation:rel1.4:occidd>). There was no light at the end of the tunnel and with both OGF29<http://www.gridforum.org/OGF29/>and IETF78 <http://www.ietf78.nl/home.html> just around the corner I yesterday took a desperate gamble to keep OCCI alive (as a CC-licensed spec, an IETF Internet-Draft or both). I confirmed that I was well within my rights to revoke any copyright, trademark and other rights previously granted (apparently it was amateur hour as OGF had failed to obtain an irrevocable license from me for my contributions) and volunteered to do so if restrictions on reuse by others weren't lifted and/or the specification submitted to the IETF process as agreed and required by their own policies. Thijs' colleague (and quite probably his boss at Platform Computing <http://www.platform.com/>), Christopher Smith (who doubles as OGF's outgoing VP of Standards) promptly responded, questioning my motives (which I can assure you are pure) and issuing a terse legal threat about how the "OGF will protect its rights" (against me over my own contributions no less). Thijs then followed up shortly after saying that they "see the secretary position as vacant from now on" and despite claims to the contrary<http://twitter.com/papaspyrou/status/16403013420>I really couldn't give a rats arse about a title bestowed upon me by a past-its-prime organisation struggling (and failing I might add) to maintain relevance. My only concern is that OCCI have a good home and if anything Platform have just captured the sort of control over it as VMware enjoy over DMTF/vCloud, with Thijs being the only remaining active editor. I thought that would be the end of it and had planned to let sleeping dogs lie until today's disgraceful, childish, coordinated and most of all completely unnecessary attack<http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2010-June/001867.html>on an unpaid volunteer that rambled about "constructive technical debate" and "community driven consensus", thanking me for my "meaningful contributions" but then calling on others to take up the pitchforks by "welcom[ing] any comments on this statement" on- or off-list. The attacks then continued on Twitter with another OGF official<http://twitter.com/papaspyrou> claiming that this "*was a consensus decision within a group of, say, 20+ active and many many (300+) passive participants*" (despite this being the first any of us had heard of it) and then calling my claims of copyright ownership "*genuine bullshit*" and report of an implementor instantly pulling out because they (and I quote) "*can't implement something if things are not stable*" a "*damn lie*", claiming I was "*pissed*" and should "*get over it and stop crying*" (needless to say they were promptly blocked).* * Anyway as you can see there's more to it than Thijs' diatribe would have you believe and so far as I'm concerned OCCI, at least in it's current form, is long since dead. I'm undecided as to whether to revoke OGF's licenses at this time but it probably doesn't matter as they agree I retain the copyrights and I think their chance of success is negligible - nobody in their right mind would implement the product of such a dysfunctional group and those who already did have long since found<http://blog.opennebula.org/?p=185> alternatives <http://blog.opennebula.org/?p=528>. That's not to say the specification won't live on in another form but now the OGF have decided to go nuclear it's going to have to be in a more appropriate forum - one that furthers the standard rather than constantly holding it back. *Protip*: None of this has anything to do with my current employer so let's keep it that way. -- Posted By Sam Johnston to Sam Johnston<http://samj.net/2010/06/how-i-tried-to-keep-occi-alive-and.html>at 6/17/2010 09:25:00 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20100617/75bb5372/attachme… ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:34:45 +0200 From: Andre Merzky <andre(a)merzky.net> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] How I tried to keep OCCI alive (and failed miserably) To: Sam Johnston <samj(a)samj.net> Cc: occi-wg(a)ogf.org Message-ID: <20100617213445.GB38082@jonas> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear Sam, apologies, but this will be my only mail on this topic. I honestly hope we can avoid a major flamewar. Quoting [Sam Johnston] (Jun 17 2010): > Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:27:57 +0200 > From: Sam Johnston <samj(a)samj.net> > To: occi-wg(a)ogf.org > Subject: [occi-wg] Fwd: How I tried to keep OCCI alive (and failed miserably) > > I was going to let this one slide but following a [2]calumniatory > missive to his "followers" by the [3]Open Cloud Computing > Interface's self-proclaimed "Founder & Chair", Sun refugee > [4]Thijs Metsch, I have little choice but to respond in my defense > (particularly as "The Chairs" were [5]actively soliciting followup > from others on-list in support). The OCCI BoF was organized by Thijs and Ignacio: http://ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/index.php?id=1567 Thijs is OCCI chair: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/occi-wg His mail to you did not mention his 'title'. just saying ;-) > Basically a debate came to a head that has been [6]brewing on- and > off-list for months regarding the [7]Open Grid Forum (OGF)'s > attempts to prevent me from licensing my own contributions > (essentially the entire normative specification) svn and mercurial logs attribute about 2/3 of the document contents to you. Mailman tells me that you generated about 20% of the mails on this list. Your contribution to OCCI is indeed substantial, and obviously the single largest one. On the other hand, for good or for worse, the current documents, implementations, discussions etc would not exist had you been working on it alone. To claim that the spec *as is* is your own (essentially), but to blame its shortcomings solely on others (below) is simply getting things wrong. This *is* a community. This is exactly the fact Thijs' mail, and the endless threads before, have been about, and this is the point I, personally, think you have difficulties to accept. *This* OCCI is *not* the product of the individual Sam Johnston. > under a permissive [8]Creative Commons license (as an additional > option to the [9]restrictive OGF license) Uhm, you are beating a dead horse here: despite our thread of close to 100 mails your voice was the *only* one arguing for CC - no single other group member, nor GFSG, nor the board, could follow your arguments that OGF IPR is in fact inhibiting any valid use case. Again, this is a community: there were ~10 explicit voices in the thread to stick to OGF IPR rules, your single voice against. OGF works consensus driven. Period. GFSG and OGF board discussed your arguments, as we understood them, and tried to make the rules more explicit were they were unclear. Yes, you can ignore the popular vote, and all arguments, all questions, and all attempts to accomodate your requests. But do you honestly expect that people consider you a team player, with 'pure intentions'? > and/or submit them to the IETF as previously agreed and as > [10]required by the OGF's own policies. This was on the grounds > that "Most existing cloud computing specifications are available > under CC licenses and I don't want to give anyone any excuses to > choose another standard over ours" and that the IETF has an > excellent track record of producing high quality, interoperable, > open specifications by way of a controlled yet open process. This > should come as no surprise to those of you who know I am and will > always be a huge supporter of open cloud, open source and open > standards. "required by the OGF's own policies": No, its is not. For one, GFD.1 is superceded by GFD.152. Also, GFD.1 explains that OGF is modeled after IETF, in terms of process, but not that GFDs are to be submitted to IETF. I actually think, however, that submitting OCCI to IETF is an great proposal. I am not sure about the technical details though: for example, it would not make sense (to me) to have two incompatible specifications under the same name. Anyway, OGF has strong ties into the IETF community, and I am sure a way can be found to accomodate the specific use case. It has been done before IIRC. That is my personal opinion though, not that of OGF or GFSG. In any case, submitting to IETF for comments will not affect OGF IPR. > The OGF process had failed to deliver after over 12 months of > deadline extensions OGF does not deliver - people do. OGF is a volonteer army (yes, suprise: you are not the only volonteer here). My (probably limited) experience shows that groups which meet often face to face, and have a good discussion culture, progress most efficiently. Uhm... ;-) > - the current spec is frozen in an incomplete state (lacking > critical features like collections, search, billing, security, etc.) as > a result of being prematurely pushed into public comment, nobody is > happy with it (including myself), the community has all but dissipated > (except for a few hard core supporters, previously including myself) > and software purporting to implement it actually implements something > completely different altogether ([11]see for yourself). Again: you claim the OCCI spec is 'essentially' yours, but all its failings are OGF-made? Strange... ;-) Implementations: OCCI is not even a published specification yet. Give it some time. AFAICS, the interest to implement (and also to use) OCCI is still strong. > There was no light at the end of the tunnel and with both > [12]OGF29 and [13]IETF78 just around the corner I yesterday took a > desperate gamble to keep OCCI alive (as a CC-licensed spec, an > IETF Internet-Draft or both). > I confirmed that I was well within my rights to revoke any copyright, > trademark and other rights previously granted (apparently it was > amateur hour as OGF had failed to obtain an irrevocable license from me > for my contributions) and volunteered to do so if restrictions on reuse > by others weren't lifted and/or the specification submitted to the IETF > process as agreed and required by their own policies. Uhm, you were trying to keep OCCI alive by revoking your granted rights? "Either you do as I say or else..."? My son does that, too. He is 7. We are concerned actually, he should be over that phase ... ;-) Sam, face it: you are not a team player. Your are technically brillant, but it is close to impossible to work *together* like this. It works only for you, alone. > Thijs' colleague (and quite probably his boss at [14]Platform > Computing), Christopher Smith (who doubles as OGF's outgoing VP of > Standards) For the records: Chris is not Thijs boss. > promptly responded, questioning my motives (which I can assure you > are pure) and issuing a terse legal threat about how the "OGF will > protect its rights" (against me over my own contributions no > less). Thijs then followed up shortly after saying that they "see > the secretary position as vacant from now on" Please do understand that this is not a personal vendetta of Thijs or Chris or anybody else. If you want, its a conspiracy: my mail count on that topic, i.e., on *YOU*, is 140. Over the last 10 days. I was not on all threads (fortunately). There have been multiple calls over the last days, to conspire of course. As Thijs said: "This is not an action we take lightly". Believe him. Stop attacking him personally. Attack OGF if you must. Its a community, you know? ;-) > and despite [15]claims to the contrary I really couldn't give a > rats arse about a title bestowed upon me by a past-its-prime > organisation struggling (and failing I might add) to maintain > relevance. Uhm, why *did* you pick OGF actually? This is a serious question. Would any other *community* have worked out any better? Also serious: you may want to consider writing specs on your own, completely, and submitting them as individual. It might well be that you are more productive that way, and that the specs improve. Hard to tell in advanvce of course, just an idea. In any case: you all *did* pick OGF, and its rules. Next time, please think about it *before* you join a community. > My only concern is that OCCI have a good home and if anything > Platform have just captured the sort of control over it as VMware > enjoy over DMTF/vCloud, with Thijs being the only remaining active > editor. Uhm, Sam, I hate to tell you, but the fact that the two persons (out of ~10?) you're having trouble with are from Platform does not mean OGF is controled by Platform. OGF is a volonteer army. Everybody can nominate anybody as chair or AD. Positions are hold by consensus of the community. I don't have statostics about chairs at hand, but the AD affiliation is quite diverse: http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_steering.php It is as often with your mails: lots of effort to distinguish ranting from arguments :-( Please use twitter for ranting, and this list for discussions. > I thought that would be the end of it and had planned to let > sleeping dogs lie until today's disgraceful, childish, coordinated > and most of all completely unnecessary [16]attack on an unpaid > volunteer that rambled about "constructive technical debate" and > "community driven consensus", thanking me for my "meaningful > contributions" but then calling on others to take up the > pitchforks by "welcom[ing] any comments on this statement" on- or > off-list. Sam, its not an attack. It is a attempt to get the group functional again, to avoid deadlocks, and to avoid decisions not supported by group consensus. Likely, this sounds like the very same rambling to you, sorry for that - we see meaning in those points. > The attacks then continued on Twitter with another [17]OGF > official claiming that this "was a consensus decision within a > group of, say, 20+ active and many many (300+) passive > participants" (despite this being the first any of us had heard of > it) Well, I can support the cited statement. That makes 4. Keep counting ;-) > and then calling my claims of copyright ownership "genuine > bullshit" and report of an implementor instantly pulling out > because they (and I quote) "can't implement something if things > are not stable" a "damn lie", claiming I was "pissed" and should > "get over it and stop crying" (needless to say they were promptly > blocked). Yes, we are concerned about that, too. OCCI needs to be stable. > Anyway as you can see there's more to it than Thijs' diatribe Again, please stop attacking Thijs - he is the messenger. > would have you believe and so far as I'm concerned OCCI, at least > in it's current form, is long since dead. > I'm undecided as to whether to revoke OGF's licenses at this time > but it probably doesn't matter as they agree I retain the > copyrights and I think their chance of success is negligible - > nobody in their right mind would implement the product of such a > dysfunctional group and those who already did have long since > [18]found [19]alternatives. Alternatives are healthy. "The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from." (A.S. Tanenbaum). But really: in our opinion OCCI very much alive and kicking, and we hope it stays that way. But I am known to be a terrible fortuneteller :-P > That's not to say the specification won't live on in another form > but now the OGF have decided to go nuclear it's going to have to > be in a more appropriate forum - one that furthers the standard > rather than constantly holding it back. Protip: None of this has > anything to do with my current employer so let's keep it that way. Sam, honestly: I wish you all the best. Please reconsider your actions: the OGF OCCI group would very much welcome your continued input! Honestly! Really! Really really! We would like to do things our own way tough: consensus driven. That is about the only condition we have, really. Thanks, Andre. -- Nothing is ever easy. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 00:20:45 +0200 From: Steven Newhouse <Steven.Newhouse(a)cern.ch> Subject: [occi-wg] To all the members of the OCCI WG To: "occi-wg(a)ogf.org" <occi-wg(a)ogf.org> Cc: "ogf-board(a)ogf.org" <ogf-board(a)ogf.org> Message-ID: <471AD4CD1F3AC846911E0C520A522E720CCAC3DA(a)cernxchg74.cern.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" This is perhaps one of the saddest days in the many years that OGF/GGF has = acted as an umbrella for standards collaboration. As a community, we have n= ever had to deal with a situation where an individual has repeatedly chosen= to act in a divisive manner, ignoring the wishes and contributions of the = majority of their colleagues in a working group, and ignoring the processes= and rules that they themselves signed up to when they began contributing. This situation is not really about standards or about the rights and wrongs= of IP policies, where cloud standards should evolve or whatever. It's abo= ut trust. It's about trusting your working group members to respect their = colleagues and their colleagues' contributions and opinions, it's about tru= sting that someone will adhere to the express commitments they made when th= ey joined the community. The chairs of the OCCI working group, and lots of members of the OGF commun= ity, have, on many occasions worked with Sam to try and achieve our shared = goal of a well defined and implemented OCCI specification. This work is of= fundamental importance to the OGF community and to the broader cloud commu= nity. Sam's contributions have been exceptional, but this specification is= , and will be, the result of team work, of contributions ranging from activ= e writing of the content, to debate about it that improves its quality, to = implementation and so forth. This work is the result of the labours of man= y, no matter how great the contribution of one. It is the community that v= alidates the work, that ensures its quality and that results in implementat= ions. That community is the OCCI Working Group. It is not Sam Johnston. There are many imperfections in any and all communities or organisations, i= ncluding OGF. But OGF remains one of the easiest within which to work, to= collaborate, to validate and to implement. Sam has decided that it is not= for him, which is his right, and which we respect. Regrettably the chairs= of the group, with the unanimous approval and support of the community's e= lected leaders, have decided that Sam can no longer act as secretary of the= working group. He has become impossible to work with. Nonetheless we tha= nk him whole heartedly for his contributions, in spite of this situation. = And, should he wish to continue to collaborate under the same set of rules = that he and the rest of the working group signed up to when they joined, he= will be most welcome. In the meantime the OCCI working group will continue, as will its work. We= will do what is required to move our specification forward and we expect t= o reengage many past contributors who had found engagement difficult. The = OGF community's leaders continue to stand in full support of the OCCI worki= ng group chairs, the working group they help lead and the work that this gr= oup undertakes. Let's move on! Steven Newhouse OGF Board Chairman ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg(a)ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg End of occi-wg Digest, Vol 15, Issue 12 ***************************************

1 0

Announcement from the chairs
by Thijs Metsch 17 Jun '10

17 Jun '10

Dear followers, Following concerns raised by many members of the OCCI community, the chairs of the OCCI-WG have asked Sam to step down from his role as secretary within the group. This is not an action we take lightly – as a community we recognise and support the need for constructive technical debate to reach community driven consensus. Members of the OGF Leadership (the group chairs and the VP standards) have discussed the matter with Sam to try and encourage him to work constructively as part of the OCCI-WG community. Although we recognize and thank Sam for the meaningful contributions he has made to the group, it has become clear to us and others that Sam is unwilling to compromise and work as part of a team, and to continue to develop the family of OCCI specifications as part of OCCI. We welcome any comments on this statement either privatly to one of the chairs or the list. Regards, -The Chairs

1 0

Short demo conference call
by Mark Carlson 16 Jun '10

16 Jun '10

What: Cloud Demo coordination planning When: Wednesdays: 8amPT/9amMT/11amET Where: Audio conference information: Toll Free: (866) 682-4770 International: +1 (408) 774-4073 Conference Code: 1212488 Security Code: 1212 Agenda: Updated status of demo - ready for next week? Two sets of slides: Afternoon presentation version: OGF29-Pesentation.ppt <http://groups.google.com/group/cloud-demo/web/OGF29-Pesentation.ppt> Reception rolling powerpoint version: OGF29-Rolling.ppt <http://groups.google.com/group/cloud-demo/web/OGF29-Rolling.ppt> Any other updates? Google Group for Cloud Demo http://groups.google.com/group/cloud-demo

1 0

no OCCI concall today...
by Thijs Metsch 16 Jun '10

16 Jun '10

The chairs are having an internal call today at the exact same time... If you have any questions, input or need information for next week's OGF event - do not hesitate to ping me. Cheers, -Thijs -- Thijs Metsch Senior Software Engineer Grid and Cloud Technology Platform Computing GmbH Europaring 60 D-40878 Ratingen http://www.platform.com http://www.nohuddleoffense.de/ - http://www.twitter.com/befreax

1 0

OGF event next week.
by Thijs Metsch 14 Jun '10

14 Jun '10

Hi @all, OGF 29 will take place next week in Chicago, IL. The complete schedule can be found here: http://ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/index.php?event_id=16 Monday will be extremely interesting - First of all there is a session with presentation about the cloud demos. Following that is our group session. Since this OGF is more a working event I will present the status and present some points which are open for discussion. If you want to present too - feel free to ping me. But probably most interesting is the Monday night Welcome reception where the actual cloud-demo will take place - And thanks to several people we can present a OCCI/CDMI joint demo! So thanks again to all the people who worked on the demo. Other then this I'm looking forward to meet some of you next week! Cheers, -Thijs -- Thijs Metsch Senior Software Engineer Grid and Cloud Technology Platform Computing GmbH Europaring 60 D-40878 Ratingen http://www.platform.com http://www.nohuddleoffense.de/ - http://www.twitter.com/befreax

2 1

Cloud Demo Call Today
by Mark Carlson 09 Jun '10

09 Jun '10

What: Cloud Demo coordination planning When: Wednesdays: 8amPT/9amMT/11amET Where: Audio conference information: Toll Free: (866) 682-4770 International: +1 (408) 774-4073 Conference Code: 1212488 Security Code: 1212 Agenda: Updated status of demo What work is complete? What can clients do so far? What work is still left to do? Google Group for Cloud Demo http://groups.google.com/group/cloud-demo

1 0