EntertheGrid/Primeur: The most important recommendation of the report is to form a permanent "European Grid Agency". It should develop a Grid computing reference model, and reference implementation and take care of IPR issues. What is your opinion about such an agency?

Pawel Plaszczak (PP):I do not believe that forming a European Grid Agency is a key to success. The article stresses on the IPR issues, in which the agency would help. I assume this is about the IPR from numerous Grid projects centrally funded from the 5th, 6th or 7th framework. I have seen a number of those projects. I don't think IPR is their major problem. I think the major problem is lack of goal-oriented process. With no commercial customers at sight, a number of European projects produce software that is useful only to themselves. We "think" that we (as Europe) have leadership in academic Grids, but this isn't the case. We only have leadership in "the amount of funding" for academic Grids, which is not necessarily something to be proud of, considering that a vast amount of that funding might be going to a black hole. For those EU-funded projects that do not produce a reasonable product, assistance with IPR is not going to be very helpful.

As for the idea of building a common (yet another!) Grid toolkit, I would be very sceptical either. Yes, I think it is a good idea in general, but I've seen too many people having the exact same idea fail. Enough to mention the same examples you quote: Globus, Unicore, gLite - none of which became the industry standard with impact comparable to, say, Linux, HTTP, TCP/IP, Java, CORBA or Web Services. Standards, protocols, reference models and toolkits only make sense if they are supported by the industry. There already exist Grid standards, protocols, toolkits and reference models (EGA) which aren't widely used by the industry. If there is a convincing argument that the new European reference model has higher chances of uptake than the existing ones, I will be all supportive for the idea. Otherwise, we will only contribute to the myth of Europe leading in academic Grids, while in fact we would be only drifting away from the real world, real users and real problems.

Now, if there is a sentiment for the "American" Globus project (by the way, led by a New Zealander) and its success, I think the approach is wrong. I witnessed the Globus project as an insider and have great respect for this team and what they accomplished. In the same time, I could see things that could be done better in Globus. If we, as Europe, want to repeat a similar success, we should not try to blindly follow the same route, but rather follow user-centric route, that is:

• pinpoint two or three problem statements (where are the potential industrial Grid users? What is it that they cannot achieve with the current toolkits/standards/ref models?)
• build a formal or informal consortium of leading industry, supporting our mission
• choose the shortest path to solve these problems
• if the industry does not immediately adopt our solution, do not blindly follow the route - but admit that something must be wrong with the solution

With this approach, the idea of building the European Grid Agency seems to be an upside-down solution, against the rule of thumb in marketing which teaches: make what you can sell (instead of trying to sell what you can make). With all this in mind, let me answer your questionnaire.

EntertheGrid/Primeur: Although Europe had the lead in Grids for academia and research, that does not seem to have resulted in a European Grid computing industry or a faster uptake in industry in general, the report concludes. Is that, in your opinion a correct conclusion?

PP:As I explained, the European lead in academia is in my opinion a myth. Please note, that inside the academia there are two types of institutions: technology providers (IT), and technology consumers (Biotech, Engineering, Social Sciences, Chemistry, ...) In Europe we have a number of Grid technology providers, but very few non-IT consumers. I would never call this situation a "lead". I would call this bad understanding of the market. We produce technology that no-one uses. IT should not exist for itself. It only makes sense if it serves other sciences. In other ways, we "must" look at customers, no matter whether we're inside academia or inside industry.

EntertheGrid/Primeur: According to the report the IT industry is very different from those in other parts of the world. In general, European IT companies are either large integrators, or SME's. Large European vendors are lacking. This requires a different approach to accelerate Grid computing uptake, hence the European Grid agency that could act as a focal point and handle IPR issues beyond the possibilities of SME's. What is your opinion about this?

PP:Interesting :) Actually, I am a head of an SME, for whom Grid Computing is the focal point of business. We use and create Grid technologies every day. Do we have IPR problems? Yes! Would legal assistance be welcome? Yes, very much, on a daily basis! So, would I use services of this agency? Probably... not.

I have dealt with a number of EU-funded institutions for past three years. Not a single of these were ever helpful to me. If the agency you are thinking of was more effective, better managed and better SME-oriented, I would possibly be using their services. Still, I don't fully understand the purpose because I don't think that Grid IPR is different than traditional IPR.

EntertheGrid/Primeur: If one reads the report, one sees that a big part is devoted to IPR and licensing. To get Grids that cross enterprise boundaries, or even to have large heterogoneous Grids within a company, IPR and licensing of components has to be clear. The report opts for a style of Open Source Software license, but says this should be investigated. It also says the legal situation in Europe is different from, for instance, the USA. For example, in software patents and waiving liability. What is your opinion about this issue?

PP:As stated above, I think the real problem with Grids in Europe is elsewhere. It is not in licensing.

EntertheGrid/Primeur: What are your experiences with Grid commercialisation with GridWise thusfar? Do you agree with the analysis of the European situation? Would a European Grid agency help you? What in your opinion is the most important obstacle to Grid commercialisation in Europe (if there is any)?

PP:Contrarily to what is being said many times in the media, I don't see many serious obstacles. Please have a look at the list of our customers quoted above. These corporations are happily implementing Grids. The problem lies in the question itself: "What are the obstacle to commercialize Grids?" This question is badly posed. Commercializing Grids should not be a goal in itself. Commercial Grids are only as good, as they effectively solve real world problems, better than other technologies out there. One should rather find a customer, and ask "What problems are you facing with virtualizing your infrastructure?" Customers don't care whether the solution commercializes Grids or not. Customers only care if their problem is solved. If we keep focusing on commercializing Grids (possibly useless Grids), instead of focusing on solving real life problems (possibly with the aid of useful Grid technology), we will get nowhere because this would not be a customer-oriented process.