I've had some fantastic conversations with folks over the last couple of weeks as we collaborated from the perspective of how a network and security professional might map/model/classify various elements of Cloud Computing.
I just spent several hours with folks at ShmooCon (a security conference) winding through the model with my peers getting excellent feedback.
Prior to that, I've had many people say that the collaboration has yielded a much simpler view on what the Cloud means to them and how to align solutions sets they already have and find gaps with those they don't.
My goal was to share my thinking in a way which helps folks with a similar bent get a grasp on what this means to them. I'm happy with the results.
And then....one day at Cloud Camp...
However, it seems I chose an unfortunate way of describing what I was doing in calling it a taxonomy/ontology, despite what I still feel is a clear definition of these words as they apply to the work.
I say unfortunate because I came across a post by Steve Oberlin, Cassat's Chief Scientist on his "Cloudology" blog titled "Cloud Burst" that resonates with me as the most acerbic, condescending and pompous contributions to nothingness I have read in a long time.
Steve took 9 paragraphs and 7,814 characters to basically say that he doesn't like people using the words taxonomy or ontology to describe efforts to discuss and model Cloud Computing and that we're all idiots and have provided nothing of use.
The most egregiously offensive comment was one of his last points:
I do think some blame (a mild chastisement) is owed to anyone participating in the cloud taxonomy conversation that is not exercising appropriately-high levels of skepticism and insisting on well-defined and valid standards in their frameworks. Taxonomies are thought-shaping tools and bad tools make for bad thinking. One commenter on one of the many blogs echoing/amplifying the taxonomy conversation remarked that some of the diagrams were mere “marketecture” and others warned against special interests warping the framework to suit their own ends. We should all be such critical thinkers.
What exactly in any of my efforts (since I'm not speaking for anyone else) suggests that in collaborating and opening up the discussion for unfettered review and critique, constitutes anything other than high-levels of skepticism? The reason I built the model in the first place was because I didn't feel the others accurately conveyed what was relevant and important from my perspective. I was, gasp!, skeptical.
We definitely don't want to have discussions that might "shape thought." That would be dangerous. Shall we start burning books too?
From the Department of I've Had My Digits Trampled..
So what I extracted from Oberlin's whine is that we are all to be chided because somehow only he possesses the yardstick against which critical thought can be measured? I loved this bit as he reviewed my contribution:
I might find more constructive criticism to offer, but the dearth of description and discussion of what it really means (beyond the blog’s comments, which were apparently truncated by TypePad) make the diagram something of a Rorschach test. Anyone discussing it may be revealing more about themselves than what the concepts suggested by the diagram might actually mean.
Interestingly, over 60 other people have stooped low enough to add their criticism and input without me "directing" their interpretation so as not to be constraining, but again, somehow this is a bad thing.
So after sentencing to death all those poor electrons that go into rendering his rant about how the rest of us are pissing into the wind, what did Oberlin do to actually help clarify Cloud Computing? What wisdom did he impart to set us all straight? How did he contribute to the community effort -- no matter how misdirected we may be -- to make sense of all this madness?
Let me be much more concise than the 7,814 characters Oberlin needed and sum it up in 8:
NOTHING.
So it is with an appropriate level of reciprocity that I thank him for it accordingly.
/Hoff
Update: The reason for the strikethrough above -- and my public apology here -- is that William contacted me and clarified he was not referring to me and my pretty drawings (my words,) although within context it appeared like he was. I apologize, William and instead of simply deleting it, I am admitting my error, apologizing and hanging it out to dry for all to see. William is not a jackass. As is readily apparent, I am however. ;)