On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis.richardson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Alexis Richardson
>
> Trying to build a standard from scratch is like trying to work out what
> colour to paint the bikeshed, as evidenced by discussions like this.

Yes, when we formed OCCI we agreed to minimise invention of new
technology - obviously this is a 'judgement call'.  The chairs should
apply this principle when facilitating consensus.

I think it's best you stick to calling the consensus based on discussions, which hopefully you will also be contributing to (there's no harm in wearing both hats if you keep the roles separate).

Such a "test" is highly subjective and easily [ab]used to short circuit consensus and/or suppress ideas you don't personally understand or appreciate. Case in point is the unjustified claim that using HTTP headers for metadata is somehow experimental "new technology" when it was explicitly defined for this purpose by RFC2068 over a decade ago and used extensively since:

Entity-header fields define optional metainformation about the entity-body or, if no body is present, about the resource identified by the request.

Conversely the creation of a domain-specific language for each and every resource that we need to represent (at least 3 for infrastructure, 5-10+ for platforms and an infinite number for applications) and somehow keeping that in sync with authorative "native" representations like OVF is *far* more experimental, error prone and ultimately likely to fail.

Sam