Thread by @swardley

Awesome. In a world of defacto standards, it's so useful to have groups creating the equivalent of the new OSI to stop all that TCP/IP nonsense. I suppose it keeps them employed. Next time, try building an industry first ->

https://twitter.com/d_waut/status/1392031949187915780

X : OSI?
Me : In the early days of the intenet, Europe standards groups tried to ban TCP/IP (the protocol that creates the internet that powers your web) in favour of their own OSI 7 layer standard. They lost, the defacto won, you have the inernet which enabled the web.

X : I thought TCP/IP was OSI compliant.
Me : After being battered to a pulp by TCP/IP, the OSI standard groups then refined OSI to claim that TCP/IP was OSI compliant i.e. they did the usual of switching sides and then claiming they were on the winning side all along.

Never underestimate the ability of standard groups, policy wonks, their lawyers and the supporting industries they form to pervert reality in order to claim that their thing is worthwhile, a success, being adopted and everyone benefits etc ... see GDPR.

X : Isn't GDPR a success?
Me : Depends upon who you talk to and how they define success.
X : And?
Me : My thoughts? Well, if the intention was to consolidate power into fewer dominant web giants, create new barriers to entry and new bureacracies then it has been wonderful.

X : Not enthusiastic about the EC standards effort then?
Me : About as enthusiastic as the EC cloud standards effort that were going to change the world by being "anyone but Amazon". The EC fiddles at digital sovereignty but frankly it hasn't a clue - swardley.medium.com/digital-sovere…

The problem is the same one I found in the office of the CIO in US Gov. They often tried to policy their way to a future rather than trying to build the example and the industry which they can help guide. One great thing about GDS in the UK is it lead by example.

It's similar with China where the Gov gets directly involved in building, nurturing and guiding industry. I suppose it's the distinction between an Engineer vs Lawyer mindset in Government and what mindset dominates.

So, no ... I'm not enthusiastic with these EC standards. I look at it as jobs for a certain crowd, dubious if not negative impacts, poor track record and huge wastes of resources.

X : What do you prefer?
Me : Directed investment. encouraging development of industry. targetted focus of resources (ideally map the space) and let defacto's form. At that point you can use dejeure.
X : Are the EC doing this?
Me : I know a few in the EC who think like this ...

... but I''m not aware they are playing such games. Maybe somewhere in smart cities etc but that'll be @jacquitaylorfb influence.

X : What do you to think to this?
Me : A focus on industrialising components, possible use of open approaches, shifting today's legacy ... seems reasonable. Where's it from?
X : EC industrial technology roadmap, May 2021.
Me : Oh ... serious ...

X : Yep. ec.europa.eu/newsroom/repos…
Me : Hmmm ... I suppose you're going to make me eat my words?
X : Yep. I've been waiting for this, for a long long time.
Me : Ditto.

X : You've gone quiet?
Me : Yes. I never expected to see the EC start considering the landscape and upping its situational awareness. That could turn out to be quite challenging for the UK. This could herald a new level in nation state competition. Hmmm ... lots to ponder.

X : In regards to digital sovereignty ...
Me : ... forget what I said. If the EC have started mapping then this potentially changes everything.
X : The roadmap is right?
Me : It's irrelevant. What matters is the map is a vehicle for communication, challenge and learning ...

... beforehand, you could pretty much rely on people not learning or challenging effectively in competitive spaces. This is quite a big deal, I am surprised.

X : Why trouble?
Me : Have you even seen two competitive groups face each other, one with more advanced tech but little or no situational awareness whilst the other has advanced situational awareness?
X : And?
Me : It's not pretty. It's why situational awareness is paramount.

Me : Problem only gets worse over time especially if one group is using the landscape to learn from ... China and Deng Xiaoping all over again.
X : Does China use your maps?
Me : No. Well, I'm not aware but they have some equivalent mental model. Hit rates too high not to.

X : I'm not convinced by the EC Industrial roadmap even if they do use a map.
Me : Using a map doesn't make something right. It provides an opportunity to challenge assumptions (pre-mortem) and to learn by taking actions and then re-visiting the map (post mortem) ...

It's that potential to learn that should raise eyebrows. Usually, we write a business case, spend a truck load of money and convince ourselves we will magically learn any lessons of failure before repeating the same mistakes all over again ... outsource all, agile everywhere etc.