CloudNOW Aims to Amplify the Contribution of Women to Cloud Computing
That’s Cloud “Network of Women” and it’s a new opportunity to collaborate on cloud and emerging technologies Many, many years Fritz Nelson (then Vice President, Group Publisher for the Network Computing Enterprise Architecture) answered a question during an interview on the intersection of women and technology – particularly the lack of the former in the latter – essentially saying it was incumbent upon those women who were active and had a voice to use it in ways that encouraged other women to join, participate, and take up the reins of leadership when possible within the world of technology. The way I see it today, it’s not that women are necessarily reluctant to be in IT – we are out there – it’s that our voice is often lost among the much larger chorus of deep tones in the technology orchestra today. If men are the brass section, women are the oboe – easily drowned out by the “big” sound of a much larger group. And that shouldn’t be read as a condemnation of IT or as anything wrong with technology or with men; it’s a mathematical equation that says if the percentage of women in technology is small, the percentage of those women who are leaders in technology will be even smaller. And when you start parsing up technology into specific concerns, like cloud computing , those numbers and thus percentages decrease even more, to the point of women being, well, an oboe amidst a much larger chorus of trumpets, cornets, and tubas. Women are capable of contributing a great deal to the modern technologies industry and today's organizations' managements are well aware of that fact. After all, this is something that a number of notable female computer pioneers such as Ada Lovelace, Grace Hopper, and Anita Borg have proven more than once through the ages since the creation of the first mechanical computing machine by Charles Babbage in 1821. -- Issue in Focus - Why Are There So Few Women in Computer Science? So when an opportunity comes along that can amplify that oboe’s sound so that it can be heard as well as the brass section, I fall back on Fritz’s advice: join, participate and encourage other women to be more vocal by adding their voice as well. With that in mind, I’m quite pleased to help spread the word about a new, women-oriented “network” focusing on Cloud computing, Cloud Network of Women (CloudNOW). Founded recently by Jocelyn DeGance Graham, CloudNOW is a “non-profit consortium of the leading women in cloud computing, focused on using technology for the overall professional development of women from around the world by providing a forum for networking, knowledge sharing, mentoring, and economic growth.” With membership coming from EMC, HP, Intel, IBM, Salesforce, successful startups, the tech media, and noted analysts, CloudNOW “offers members opportunities to creatively approach the technological challenges of cloud today, working in partnership with the tech industry, cloud visionaries, and global media. Forming a collective, together we are the voice of authority for women in cloud and emerging technologies.” It’s a platform of opportunity to connect with women and bring their insights and solutions regarding cloud computing and emerging technologies to the fore. Through publishing papers, speaking opportunities and research, Jocelyn hopes to build a robust community of women experts and leaders who can actively contribute to and lead conversations around these emerging technologies. CloudNOW is currently building out its advisory board, and has already recruited some of the most respected names in cloud computing (both men and women) as well as the leadership team and special interest group liaisons to assist in covering topics such as security and convergence as well as offering deep technical forums for digging into the highly complex (and sometimes confusing) world of cloud computing. If you’re interested in helping out in any way – including support, sponsorship, or underwriting – feel free to get in touch with Jocelyn (@JocelynDG ) and let her know. Men are welcome, too, despite the focus on women – the effort hopes to be a collaborative one with a focus on women’s ideas and solutions, not their gender and thus collaboration with all folk interested in technology is imperative for vetting and solidifying solutions. And be sure to visit CloudNOW and register to explore the opportunities and join the conversation. The Cloud Configuration Management Conundrum Mission Impossible: Stateful Cloud Failover Cloud Computing Goes Back to College Beware the Cloud ProgrammerJSON Activity Streams and the Other Consumerization of IT
The JSON Activity Stream specification could allow the (other and oh so soon forgotten side of) consumerization of IT to make its way into the data center. Remember when I posited that the Next-Generation Management of Data Centers Should be Modeled on Social Networking and introduced the concept of “Infrabook” – a somewhat silly-but-serious-at-the-time idea that infrastructure should get “social”? The recent publication of JSON Activity Streams – in addition to being very exciting from an infrastructure architecture perspective – may be exactly what is needed to bring this concept to life. Seriously. Infrastructure already knows how to “speak” a variety of management languages such as SNMP and even XML, so why not adopt a simple HTTP + JSON approach to share real-time updates and notifications in the data center regarding the operational status of the infrastructure as well as the applications its designed to deliver? JSON ACTIVITY STREAMS at a GLANCE For those not familiar with Activity Streams (or JSON, for that matter) let’s take a quick look at it through a fresh lens. JSON – Javascript Object Notation – is an unstructured data format that is (more and more) commonly used to exchange data between applications using REST APIs as well as between the client (typically a browser) and an application. It’s actually a lot like XML, minus all the really hairy nesting and schematic constraints imposed on XML. While at first used primarily to enable real-time updating of clients a la AJAX, it is more and more frequently being used on the server side of architectures and thus as a means of integration, as well. It’s fairly simple to parse and manipulate and unlike its XML predecessor is far more human-readable. JSON primarily uses a name-value mechanism for serializing data and any old-skool object-oriented programmer will see similarities in its serialization with other, past and present object-oriented serialization techniques. A simple example of a JSON message might be:The Soft Risks of Social Networking
Just about every large organization, a whole lot of startups, are trying to leverage the potential of social media in their marketing efforts. We all read great articles containing tips and tricks regarding how to use social media for business purposes, and how to gauge whether or not we are successful. The discussions often ignore the risks, especially the soft risks, of engaging the market and so-called citizen journalists at the Internet's watercoolers. Soft risks are always part of the equation of the return on investment for a product or piece of software. Soft risks are usually nebulous, incalculable costs that are not necessarily directly related to the function of the solution we are purchasing. These are often things like the potential for the vendor to survive a tougher economy, the investment in learning a new skill or programming language required in order to leverage the new technology solution, and the unknowable costs of integrating with the rest of the infrastructure. Like investing in a solution, investing in social media has risks, but unlike solutions that are purchased to do a specific thing social media's risks are almost all soft. They are immeasurable and, often times, not obvious. A recent article, You Better Think Before You Twit, highlighted one of the potential soft risks of social media: the always uncomfortable foot in mouth. Interestingly, this article, while pointing out the potential negative aspects of being always connected to others at the Internet watercooler, kept the focus personal. But the risks involved in engaging social media in such an informal way can adversely affect the company you represent, and it's important to recognize that risk - and give guidance - before your employees are out tweeting or powncing or plurking or uploading pictures of the company's Christmas party to Flickr. It's not just the potential slip of the tongue that reveals upcoming product plans or launches, or that gives away potentially sensitive corporate information. Most employees understand the potential harm to the organization such actions can cause and are careful to ensure they don't cross the lines they know exist. But they aren't so careful about expressing themselves on other subjects because it is, as it were, like hanging around the watercooler. We're just doing it electronically instead of physically. This can be great for remote office and tele-workers for making them feel like a part of the organization, but when the conversation turns to topics of a more personal and sensitive nature, it can backfire on the organization. When Google CEO Eric Schmidt decided to publicly endorse a political candidate, he may have meant to do so personally, but because he used his position at Google while doing so he made one of the first faux pas of social networking on the job: getting political. Discussions around the web indicated a mix of reactions, some good and some bad. Similarly, Apple's donation of $100,000 to the "No on Prop 8" campaign raised similar objections and support at Internet watercoolers around the country. In both cases there were reactions that included "I am not buying/using their products anymore because of this." Right or wrong, the reactions were real. Both companies lost customers - or potential customers - over their decisions to dabble publicly in politics. Sure, that number might be minimal, but it might also be more far reaching than either considered. Conversely, their support might have gained them customers. That's why it's called a soft risk, because the effects can't be easily, if at all, quantified. A long time ago we taught folks that politics and religion had no place in business; that discussing these taboo topics within the confines of the business world was a no-no and dangerous. It was a risk. The same is true for organizations who, unlike Google and Apple, certainly can't afford the negative hits on their reputation across the Internet based on any given employee's public discussions of things best left at home. The line between professional and personal life is indeed blurring, especially for those who are considered corporate spokespersons, as their opinions on subjects that are outside the realm of technology can be taken as reflecting corporate culture and views on those subjects. It's easy to forget when you're hanging out on Twitter that you aren't just you, you're representing your organization. At the beginning of the hype cycle for the election, @prnewswire lamented a bit on this fact, but wisely decided that not commenting on such things was the only logical thing to do lest the person behind the avatar risk damage to the corporate entity it represents. And no matter which side you take on divisive topics, someone is going to be angry with that opinion and may choose to take their business elsewhere because of it. And you kids out there, remember, Google is forever (or at least it looks like it will be) and what you say on the ever-archiving web and how you say it will certainly be discovered in 5 or 10 years when your (next) potential employer searches you out to aid in their decision whether or not to hire you. Before you get all bent out of shape about the potential restriction, remember that when you choose to make yourself a public figure of any kind to any size audience that you are giving up a lot of your privacy and personal flexibility. Becoming an Internet personality sounds great until you realize it can be (and I would argue in many cases should be) a soft muzzle on your personal opinions on touchy subjects. The rule of thumb when you are engaging folks 'out there' is simple. We call it "social media" for a reason, after all. If you're commenting on blogs, or tweeting, or powncing, or just generally engaging in conversation electronically, it behooves you to remember the "media" in social media, and treat everyone like a potential member of the press rather than as "that cool guy/gal I met on Twitter". If you wouldn't talk to the press about political or religion or other potentially divisive topics, then you probably shouldn't be tweeting about them, either.
