 Felly, i wasbio, rydyn ni wneud unrhyw gweithio gyfo'r byddau i'n widio'r gwaith neu bod i'n unedol i ffor i gydnodr yn ystyried o'r lligfa. I wnaeth chi'n gweithio, yn ddistaned, y dyfodd ychydig ar weithio i ni i wneud atoedd o'r ysgol. Y lelyg Ondrash Sulkal yn y plaid i chi'n gweithio i amlio'r eu cyffredinol Ondrash y bydd ymddangos CTO enli i'r F干fyrdd IBM US Federal a'r gweithio i'r ffyrddieid y tu. Diolch i rhannu o'r ddechrau ymddefnyddio U.S. Ondrush yw ymddi'r clywedlaeth i ddefnyddio IBM, ydyn nhw'n eisiau yn tynd am y gynhyrch. Yn Ynrych Cysylltu IBM, byddai gyfyniad y taith â'r dgweithio ac yng Nghymchi Gwiydd cyffredinol cywyddedd wath-egor a ymddwch ei hynny gyda'u sefydli'r programme cyllidellol iawn. Ond, yn yymddi'r cyffredinol, mae'n iawn. Felly, mae'n fynd i, Mae'r dweud wrth fynd yn y cyfdeithasol hynny o yr ydwg OTTF. Yr ym Mwyllgor Fyfer, mae'r bobl fyddiol, mae'r bobl fyddiol ar y dyfod ym ymwneud. Rwy'n ddweud â'r Dfwyllg Fyffordd. Dfwyffordd? Ym Mwyffordd. Dw i'n gweld, mae'n bobl. I dim oedd ychydig Ym Mwyffordd wedi'n amddangos ym Mwyffordd i'r cyfanydd ohol. No, no. OK, so the reason I've asked Andrush up here and to kick off the theme for this morning is Andrush has raised several times over the last few meetings at the governing board of the open group. We should be considering doing executable standards in the open group. We do great stuff with the way we do standards, but there are other things going on outside and we should be thinking about how that relates to the open groups approach to things and what we should do. So can you just introduce the concept without going into specific details maybe? What's the idea of when you brought this to us and said, OK, there's other stuff going on, other ways of doing standards basically based on code? What's the concept? Well, the concept of executable standards is that we've gone through an evolution of, you know, our thinking about how to standardize over a 20-25-year period, maybe even a little longer. And today you're seeing this convergence between the creation of open source and standardization to create a foundation for innovation. Whereas previously we really thought about standardization from a really hardcore paper specification perspective, at least that's how we started off. Right. Yeah. I mean different types of standards and some of them have certification programs that go along with them and testing and some don't. So what does the executable approach bring that the more traditional approach that's called the paper standards for one of a better description? Well, maybe a little history might not be a bad idea. So when we first started with standards we talked about standardization. And standards really started, you know, if we think about the open group, with the open group and the two bodies that constituted the open group. X open and the open application. OSF. So what were they trying to achieve? They were trying to achieve interoperability and create a set of technologies that you could ensure interoperability and standardization across the industry. And it was really based on a very concerted effort of the industry at that time to write the specification and write the standard. In fact, if we really think about this, we started off with executable standards as a concept. We kind of got away from that. If you think about Corba, that was really more of a paper chase. And Corba ended up not being so successful because we would sit down, we would spend hours and hours, you know, working with some of the most premier minds in the industry coming up with a specification. And everybody would go off in their own corner and go implement. And they would come back and it really wouldn't interoperate in the way that we thought it would. So we really realized that our original approach, which was the foundation for what we did here in the open group, was the right approach. And then you see that in the convergence of, or the emergence, shall I say, of open source. And you then began to see this idea of, well, if we created a foundation, a code base that can be a foundation for innovation, we can ensure interoperability and standardization, you know, becomes more effective over a period of time. Yes, you definitely have specifications, especially for APIs and interoperability. You do have certifications, especially to ensure that the integrity of interoperability and the implementations. But then you can actually layer on your value added capabilities as a vendor or a customer on these interoperability layers based on open source. And you've got a real environment that has a tremendous amount of support in the industry. Everybody understands that piece of code because it's open source. And we all understand that it's where the rough edges and the value is in the implementation. And a lot more value and time to market is decreased. So effectively the code provides the platform upon which innovation occurs. And it's self-documenting in a way. So you don't have to write the many books on the specification of the standard itself, the code is the standard. So we've kind of gone from standardizing to innovation to standardization. So we're creating code that becomes the standard, becomes the foundation for that innovation. So this is things like examples like OpenStack, Cloud Foundry, things like that that are providing a platform. Now I know there's some dispute as to whether they're standards or not. But it's that kind of thing that you're talking about. We're forgetting that we had a few charts too. We do if we want to show it. Why don't we go forward? Yeah, so that's a really great point. So we have just a huge number of foundations and universities and vendors that are working together to create the new cloud platforms and the new tools and DevOps platforms that are going to be important for the future execution environment. And I think it's really important for us to be part of that and to realize that when we come up with a concept, we need to potentially ground that in connectivity to some of these other groups or implement our own open source so that it becomes a foundation for innovation. So in an open group, in an open group's history, we've been involved in things like plug fests and unplug fests before. Is that a similar thing or is this different in some way? Plug fests are really under the covers gorilla marketing. What it does is it gets people to play with technology that somebody else came up with and extend it and it gets the millennials interested in it. What's really different in today's world with executable standards is that you are trying to achieve some level of interoperability, some piece of innovation and you're coming up with a common code base and that common code base defines the layer on which you actually continue to add value and new ideas that aren't part of that original but extend it and add value to it. Maybe even are somewhat what we call, if you hit the next chart, open plus. So you can be your own open source vendor if you want to and assemble open source and that can be challenging by itself because you're not really focusing on your core competency or you can go proprietary which has its own upside and downside, one of them being vendor lock-in or you can go this route of open plus where you're actually using the open source and the standardization to create interoperability between different implementations of the standard using that foundational code base and different vendors and different organizations can extend it and you can use it in any way that you would like and then sometimes these extensions become part of the standard. I love the vendor lock-in assured. It's like a certification program, isn't it? You can still have certification programs. The certifications are done to ensure that people are following the standard or using it or know how to use it in some cases and that ensures interoperability too. So when it came up at the governing board, the initial area that we thought was most natural fit for trying this out in the open group was the open platform 3.0 forum. They're looking at building what the third platform should be and defining that and that's where we've put our toes in the water on it so far. If you go to the next chart, a lot of those standards are really focused on creating that whole software-defined data center and you can't do that unless you actually ensure interoperability so that's a large focus of the industry today around standardization. This is essentially the sweet spot for open platform 3 and some of the work that we're doing there. I think we have a fantastic opportunity to make an impact in the industry in this particular area. Are there any areas that you've heard the forum discussing that are of particular interest or where this approach of developing the standard, the executable standards, would lend themselves nicely or most obviously? The Internet of Things is a wide open area. We actually have a fairly decent foundation of standardization here in the open group and we're an authority in this area, I think, to a certain degree. It's a growing area and I think a little more energy in the Internet of Things would be fantastic and it would be a great place to add value there. Big data management interoperability layer that the team has been talking about. The other big one to me is cloud brokering. How do you actually manage, you're definitely going to be integrating multiple cloud providers. You're not going to just ride one cloud provider horse, whether it be infrastructure or platform as a service and you're going to have to have that brokering layer that allows you to actually interoperate with these platforms. Some standardization there would be good because customers are beginning to ask about that layer. As we do this, what have we got to look out for? Where have you seen it successful and less successful or what are the kind of things that we have to ensure to make it? One of the initial things that I've heard is that maybe this is a different set of individuals than typically participate in an open group meeting and an open group standard. There's a place for everybody, right? But if you hit the next chart, if you look at these current standardization efforts that are foundation for innovation based on open source, you've got them in pretty much every single category around where technology is heading today. You have to be able to code. I think you have to understand the technology because really you're writing the standard by writing some code and implementation. Proof of concepts are going to be really important. The other thing is that if we take some of this work that's already been done, we can't just simply start from scratch. That's not what I'm suggesting. Take some of this, some of our major vendors and build on top of them and use them because that's really what standardization is about. It's about a layering of different technologies to advance innovation. You don't simply start from scratch every time. You don't rebuild the operating system, right? No, you obviously use what you've got out there to create something new. That's really what we've got to do here. Look to our major board members and vendors to be able to help facilitate the donation of some of these environments on which we can actually build some of these new capabilities and interoperability specifications. As I say, we have started putting our toes in the water in the Open Platform 3.0 forum and we'll see how that goes. There may be other parts of the Open Group, other forums, where this kind of approach might be attractive too. So those of you in the room who are members do think about whether this lends itself to your particular area of interest or what it is that we might do. This is happening out there and if this can help us initially in Open Platform 3.0 and maybe in other places, then it's something worth having in it. Even if we just think of the Open Group, and this is not true, certainly, but if we just think of the Open Group as a toe-gaff where some people do because they don't really understand what we do, we still need to pay attention to what it means to implement enterprise architecture in the context of these new technologies and techniques. But that aside, we have a vast number of expertise but also forums that should also be looking to bring in new millennial blood that would be interested in doing the foundational coding for some of these ideas that we're coming up with. That will grow our membership and grow our opportunities as we continue to influence these areas. I think that our success in the past is an indicator of how important it is for us to be involved in this current set of initiatives. I don't know if you mentioned enterprise architecture specifically and to what extent does an enterprise architect need to know about these things and the answer is almost certainly yes they do. One of the things that we've heard a lot about is what does this kind of approach mean for the more structured approach that enterprise architecture requires. The realization I think in the acceptance that architects need to know about these technologies and how they might go about integrating them and the use of standards when you're putting things together like that is going to be key. The other thing too is that the industry is really looking to take some of these enterprise architecture best practices and codify them in code. Make them and enable them to be automated so that you don't simply have to do all of the work by hand and that the expertise lives in some of the code and that allows you to actually then step up that innovation piece that we talked about and focus on something new. IT for IT is another great place. Automation there. Where we could take that expertise. We've got the expertise, we've got it all codified very well but now we actually have to distill it into a layer that we can reuse across the vendor and customer world in order to actually automate the implementation of that expertise. OK, good. Well, I hope that provides a little intro to what we're talking about. We didn't plan on opening up for questions necessarily on this but if anyone had a burning one, we'd be happy to take it but if not, I think we've got a panel session that Dave's going to lead shortly so we'd probably leave it there for now. So thank you for your attention and Andres, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Thank you.