OSCON 2010 - Cloud Standards Debate

4,617 views
4,529 views

Published on

My slides from my debate with Sam Johnston at OSCON 2010 against the argument "What We Need are Standard".

Published in: Technology

OSCON 2010 - Cloud Standards Debate

  1. 1. What We Need are Standards in the Cloud
  2. 2. If a standard falls in the forest and there is nobody there to adopt it, is it still a standard?
  3. 3. My name is Benjamin Black
  4. 4. And I have no standards.
  5. 5. Let’s talk about something interesting, instead:
  6. 6. Technology adoption.
  7. 7. Customer-centric view
  8. 8. Why adopt a technology?
  9. 9. Utility:
  10. 10. Does this solve my problem?
  11. 11. Interoperability:
  12. 12. Can I combine vendors+products to solve my problem?
  13. 13. Independence:
  14. 14. Can I be totally free of vendor lock-in?
  15. 15. Utility
  16. 16. Interoperability Utility
  17. 17. Independence Interoperability Utility
  18. 18. These are not equal.
  19. 19. A hierarchy of needs.
  20. 20. Utility
  21. 21. Interoperability Utility
  22. 22. Independence Interoperability Utility
  23. 23. Some problems need not go past UTILITY.
  24. 24. e.g., SQL (in reality)
  25. 25. Some problems can’t achieve UTILITY without INTEROP.
  26. 26. e.g., TCP/IP
  27. 27. The cycle:
  28. 28. 1] Disruption.
  29. 29. MASSIVE UTILITY
  30. 30. (and a lot of imperfection)
  31. 31. Rapid adoption (by definition)
  32. 32. 2] Competition.
  33. 33. EXPLORATION
  34. 34. Endless variety
  35. 35. Goal: Discovery
  36. 36. Not just of solutions.
  37. 37. But of the complete problem.
  38. 38. Many ‘standards’
  39. 39. (meaning no standard)
  40. 40. The seeds of interop are sown.
  41. 41. We are currently in this stage.
  42. 42. 3] Maturation.
  43. 43. FORMALIZATION
  44. 44. Our itch having been scratched, we turn to less pressing matters.
  45. 45. Independence
  46. 46. Successful standards formalize what is already true.
  47. 47. Standards are side-effects
  48. 48. of successful technology.
  49. 49. There are no successful standards absent successful implementations.
  50. 50. All successful standards are de facto standards.
  51. 51. TANSTAAFL
  52. 52. Ra t e o f I n n o v a t i o n De g r e e o f S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n
  53. 53. Utility Ra t e o f I n n o v a t i o n De g r e e o f S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n
  54. 54. Utility Ra t e o f I n n o v a t i o n Interoperability De g r e e o f S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n
  55. 55. Utility Ra t e o f I n n o v a t i o n Interoperability Independence De g r e e o f S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n
  56. 56. (the innovation moves elsewhere)
  57. 57. Standardize too soon, and you lock to the wrong thing.
  58. 58. Unclear that it is even possible to standardize ‘too late’.
  59. 59. We have missed an important question:
  60. 60. What do we even mean by ‘standard’?
  61. 61. Standard
  62. 62. Standard Standard specification
  63. 63. Standard Standard specification Standard committee
  64. 64. Standard:
  65. 65. What everybody uses.
  66. 66. Utility + Disruption Standard
  67. 67. Standard specification:
  68. 68. What someone hopes you’ll use.
  69. 69. Interoperability Standard specification
  70. 70. Standard committees:
  71. 71. The legislative branch.
  72. 72. Independence Standard committee
  73. 73. Concerned with:
  74. 74. Licensing Patent grants Open process Interoperable implementations Open source etc.
  75. 75. Special bonuses:
  76. 76. Politiks Permanent seats Preferential votes Secret handshakes etc.
  77. 77. If you don’t achieve UTILITY...
  78. 78. Customers won’t bother.
  79. 79. They want their problems solved.
  80. 80. Standard committees don’t build.
  81. 81. We can only discover the right standards by building and exploring.
  82. 82. To discover the right standards, we must eschew standards.
  83. 83. Go do.

×