[occi-wg] moving forward

[Ian Stokes-Rees]

Alexis Richardson wrote:
> On the other hand, and negatively, I feel that the level of
> participation while high has devolved into a few people talking.  No
> matter what the quality of any individual's input, this is NOT the
> activity the chairs want to see.  We want input from others.  And we
> want to hear more from at least two kinds of people:
>   

To get input from others, and people who cannot keep up with the volume 
on the email list, it would be really helpful if there were some kind of 
summary/pointers of the OCCI "state of play" on the main OCCI docuwiki 
web page.  I've caught up on about a months worth of OCCI mailing list 
today since the OGF sessions were slow, and looked at RESTful proposals, 
state model, spreadsheet side-by-side comparison, etc. but I don't think 
others have 4-6 hours free to trawl the mailing list to find the 
relevant links and build up a coherent picture of what OCCI is currently 
"about".

It has been said many times this past month, but certainly the very 
first goal of OCCI should be to settle on something totally trivial that 
can be implemented, and then produce a few implementations that do 
that.  From my perspective the absolute most trivial thing would be to 
instantiate a virtual host, get a handle to it, and then destroy it.  It 
sounds like this has already been done, but as someone has suggested, 
capturing this in a use case, describing how OCCI specifies such a 
scenario, then pointing to some implementations which actually do it 
would be a great first step.  Assuming such a trivial process would be 
uninteresting and pointless is forgetting the problem with assumptions.  
Has this been done?  If so, highlight it on the OCCI website landing 
page.  If not, get it done.

> Because we want to make use of prior art, at this point I am going to
> quote Andy's email from earlier today: "If we want to take the middle
> ground yet not sit on the fence it would be a useful exercise to see
> what [ GoGrid ] and [ Sun ] offer and do not offer? See where our
> efforts here could improve these published APIs and models?"
>   

I've probably missed something.  Why aren't you including EC2?

Ian