Monday, July 5, 2010

Should We Put SharePoint In the Cloud? Part 3 of 7

I hope you enjoyed Parts 1 and 2 of this series, or saw my talk at SharePoint Saturday DC recently.  SPCloud3a If not, please go back and read Part 1 and Part 2 at the links below.

This 7-part series consists of the following:

Part 1 – Should we host on-premises or with a provider? (Can we do both?)

Part 2 - Do we need a dedicated solution, or is multi-tenant going to work for our needs?

Part 3 - If we make the leap, what do we lose?  What do we gain?

Part 4 - What questions should we be asking potential providers?

Part 5 - Who are the leading providers?

Part 6 - How do we select the right provider for our unique needs?

Part 7 - How do we make the business case internally?


Part 3 – If we make the leap, what do we lose?  What do we gain?

This post is all about the trade-offs you should be mindful of when you are contemplating moving to a hosting provider as opposed to deploying in an on-premise scenario. 

Unfortunately, hosting providers are forced to deal with the fact that there is a fairly entrenched misconception on the part of many people considering such options that anything other than on-premise must involve some form of loss of… something.  Maybe they fear a loss of performance, maybe a loss of features or functionality, maybe a loss of someone’s job.  Fortunately, the reality is, it doesn’t have to be that way.  Making the right choices in selecting a provider and a specific hosting arrangement can actually provide a better solution than an on-premise solution ever could, and can enable existing IT staff to be even more valuable to their organizations.

So, when we talk about what do we lose, let’s start by talking about what you’re already missing out on by deploying your solution on-premise.

Perhaps the most obvious issue in this scenario is that by deploying on-premise you are inherently limited to Internal IT’s:

capabilities It’s SPCloud3hone thing to install SharePoint, it’s another thing to keep SharePoint running smoothly over time.   You have to consider whether your internal IT staff is really up to the challenge technically and administratively.

focus Sure, in theory, Internal IT should be able to take on yet another major enterprise application, but what happens when someone’s out on vacation, just as those financial reports are due at the end of the quarter, and your IT folks are tied up dealing with the Oracle Financials solution and can’t make the changes you need to the SharePoint farm until next week? 

resources Here I’m referring not only to people, but to money and time as well.  There is only so much of each to go around, and it’s entirely possible that your SharePoint farm is getting starved for such precious resources.  The impact of a poorly implemented SharePoint solution can be substantial.  SharePoint’s well-documented potential to transform your business can hardly be realized if no one is in a position to get things done.

standards This might be a touchy subject for some, but let’s face it, many, many internal IT organizations suffer from a lack of well-defined standards.  Often, even standards that are well-defined are poorly and/or inconsistently implemented.  Either way, the effect is the same.  Middling results at best.

Often sub-optimal for widely geo-distributed users When I speak to geographically distributed companies and organizations, it is fascinating to find that many of them have very small IT groups, only a subset of which can perform effectively in a support role for SharePoint, and generally, that one or two person pool is confined to a single time zone.  This is the way organizations are evolving these days.  They don’t get huge and then go global, they go global and it is their global nature that drives their growth.  This usually happens via merger and acquisition, but there are any number of evolutionary paths (e.g., offshoring the manufacturing arm) organizations go through to get to this point.  On the technical side, many times the connectivity between the various branch offices is lacking, and one or more remote departments are suffering significant productivity losses due to the slow speed of data retrieval over the wire.

Can be difficult to scale dynamically This is really what the “cloud” is all about.  The perfect world scenario is that you utilize computing resources and therefore pay for them in direct proportion to consumption.  In other words, your solution is always perfectly sized for your needs at any given moment, and you are charged more or less as your needs fluctuate naturally, and of course, the security model is flawless and your compliance officer loves the cloud.  Not only is this ideal challenging if not literally impossible to truly achieve with today’s technology and business climate, it is a matter of fact that some providers don’t even attempt to approach this ideal scenario.  Meanwhile, architects of on-premise solutions or unmanaged solutions such as traditional co-lo are obliged to oversize the infrastructure and servers in the solution in anticipation of the scale that is needed at peak usage times.  SPCloud3d

But, the reality is, that is generally substantially more than is actually needed most of the time.

So, those are a few of the potential risks or down sides of on-premise deployments.  Next, let’s look at hosted multi-tenant models.  Then, we’ll wrap up this post talking about hosted dedicated models and hybrid models.

Hosted Multi-Tenant

No LAN connectivity speeds Whereas an on-premise deployment may supply high speed LAN connectivity to at least all of the users in the location where the servers are strategically located, with a hosted scenario, odds are you will have no LAN connectivity for any users.  That said, by leveraging a provider with solid networking capabilities, you can arrive at a very effective scenario regarding connectivity.  Some of your users may actually benefit from the use of a hosting provider in that an on-premise scenario may be limited by bandwidth and other networking constraints the organization enforces or has not the budget to alleviate.  If you’re outsourcing your MPLS network, for example, ask your network provider if they can also manage your SharePoint application in their data center and yet connect it directly to your network.

Typically, significantly reduced feature set The double-edged sword of multi-tenancy is that you are likely to see a seductively low number of zeroes after the dollar sign relative to other models.  However, don’t kid yourself.  This benefit inevitably comes at some cost.  In all or virtually all cases, any form of public multi-tenancy is going to impose inherent constraints that your organization can either choose to live with or not.  I can’t emphasize enough that you need to get a full understanding of the feature and function gaps between SharePoint’s advertised capabilities and the limited feature set available in a public multi-tenant model.   Depending on the way you intend to utilize SharePoint and the ways you could benefit from features not available in your provider’s multi-tenant model, not having these features could drastically reduce the overall value your organization ultimately derives from your investment in SharePoint.  To put it simply, proceed with caution, and keep your eyes wide open.

Typically, constraints on growth in data, capacity available to you.  A public multi-tenant environment is a virtual slice of a physical pie, if you will.  When you cut larger and larger slices of that pie, you eventually run out.  At that point, the “pie” or host machine(s) needs to be augmented by more capacity and/or physical infrastructure, which on some level requires procurement, deployment, etc.  Therefore, a hosting provider offering slices of such a pie is generally going to want to put in some preventative measures against sudden spikes in capacity requirements, because such issues could at worst, threaten the health of the overall “pie,” and at best, could put unintended constraints on the other “slices.”  So, when you opt for multi-tenant, you are likely to face some degree of limitation in the amount to which your environment can burst or grow dynamically.  Make sure you understand these limitations and their implications on how your users will be leveraging SharePoint in business processes to ensure that you won’t put yourself in a situation where you are limited unacceptably.

Typically offers very limited customization options SPCloud3e And, especially relevant to SharePoint, it is critical to understand in what ways your ability to deploy 3rd party web parts, add-on utilities, and/or your own team’s custom code may be limited.  In public multi-tenant scenarios, it can be painful to work through the process of getting these software pieces deployed.  If that’s what you are hoping to do, starting asking your vendor all about this process.




Hosted Dedicated

No LAN connectivity speeds Same consideration here as with hosted multi-tenant solutions.

With some provider solutions, it can be difficult to scale dynamically Just as an on-premise solution involving physical hardware can be tough to scale quickly due to the non-technical need to secure more funding to add more hardware capacity, etc., so can a hosted dedicated solution, especially if that solution is hosted on physical servers without easy expansion capability.  In some cases, this lack of ability to scale can take another form – a lack of data center capacity.  Look instead for a provider who can offer a fully or partially virtualized platform that can assure you easy, dynamic scaling and growth.

With some provider solutions, the customer’s infrastructure is typically designed for peak times, but rarely utilized at or even near capacity This means you are wasting money on computing power you are not actually utilizing.  This can be especially maddening in charge back scenarios, where you want to have departments fund their portion of the IT budget based on usage.  The added cost of unitilized capacity has to be paid for by the business units or by IT, and the business units are likely to complain loudly if they are paying for an environment that IT has oversized for their needs. (They reserve the right to gripe, of course, when their use of the solution reaches a point where the system is now undersized.)

Alternately, some provider solutions are undersized, and offer limited ability to scale dynamically, and performance begins to suffer when it is needed most.

If at this point you are thinking that all of these ideas are bad ones, stay tuned…  They each have their positives, too.

What do we gain?


Governance? Who wants governance?  Let’s face it, not every organization is a government agency, a compliance-driven, or otherwise highly risk averse organization.  If you want to be able to do what you want with your SharePoint solution without any process or procedure to go through first, and you’re willing to take the risks that this approach exposes your organization to, then on-premise may be for you for this reason alone.

Full-featured SharePoint to the degree infrastructure and IT can support The reality is that SharePoint, especially versions prior to SharePoint 2010, was designed for use in an on-premise fashion.  That’s why Microsoft Online Services’ SharePoint Online Standard still wasn’t nearly feature-complete, at least as of this writing.  While some providers were able to provide essentially co-lo services for full-featured SharePoint, many weren’t able to offer it as a fully managed service, because it just didn’t lend itself to such scenarios.  Since Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 was released, SharePoint as a hosted solution has become a much more sensible option.

LAN connectivity speeds in your key location(s) Again, if your people are all or nearly all in a single location, then an on-premise solution may make sense from the perspective of a speedy connection.

The “SharePoint guy” (or gal) is right down the hall  If you have a need to know that you can literally walk over and talk to the person who controls your SharePoint solution, well, on-premise offers that. 

Hosted Multi-Tenant

Cheap  If Richard Dawson asked “Why would you buy a public multi-tenant SharePoint solution?” I guarantee you both contestants would slap the buzzer immediately, and Richard would turn with a flourish and yell, “Survey Says!”  DING!  # 1 Answer!  Of course!  The primary reason people want mulit-tenant is that it is cheap.  Why is it cheap?  For the very same reason that a high rise apartment building would be prohibitively expensive for just one person to live in, but with every apartment occupied, the rent for each individual tenant can be very affordable.

Convenient It’s easy!  You don’t have to procure hardware.  You don’t have to rack and cable servers, you don’t have to install software.  It is much more convenient to simply tap an existing public multi-tenant infrastructure.

… And, as with all things in life, cheap+convenient=best, right? Right?

Offers the fundamental features of SharePoint  This is a slippery slope in my opinion.   While it’s true that this model does offer the fundamental features of SharePoint, my observation is that the organizations that really see big productivity gains and business process optimizations through the use of SharePoint are those that go beyond the fundamental features.  This is why, for example, Microsoft Online Services points out that they are working toward “full feature parity” with on-premise solutions.  It’s a way of saying that right now they are feature-limited without sounding like it.

The SharePoint application is shared with your provider’s other customers  SPCloud3i This is one of those things that either is a problem for your organization or is not.  If you can live with your application data being shared with other of your provider’s customers, fine.  Most of my customers categorically do not accept this kind of arrangement.

Clear separation of admin duties  A great reason to choose a provider is that it gives you a simple way to enforce a separation of duties when it comes to the management and governance of your solution.  The more the provider can adapt to your organization’s specific needs, the better this will work for your organization.

Great for project-based purposes with limited duration  By now, you’ve probably figured out that I am not a huge fan of public multi-tenant environments for SharePoint.  But, this is one particular use case for which I really like it, as long as you don’t have other options at the ready.  If you have a short-term project that you need to do and you want to quickly spin up a SharePoint solution, this is a very simple way to get that done.  And, since it’s of limited duration, you know you don’t have to sink costs in that you won’t have time to work off.  You can literally pay as you go, and stop paying when you’re all done.

Typically priced per user  This is an interesting issue.  Presumably because they’ve seen Microsoft Online’s pricing, many of my customers come to me initially wanting to see a SharePoint solution priced per user.   Certainly per user pricing is more convenient.   Everyone can understand it.  But, the reality is that at certain scale points, you’re paying more when you’re paying per user than if you were paying for your actual needs, of which the number of users is only one measure.  For example, certain users may need different levels of functionality, different amount of storage, or have other needs that greatly influence price.  By designing the right solution, your provider can optimize your total cost of ownership, instead of focusing on a simplistic pricing model.  If you really need it broken out by user, then you can do the math yourself.

Typically offers call center support  …And everyone loves a call center when they have a problem, right?   Right?  Sure, it’s great that you can eventually get someone on the phone, but it’s a very impersonal experience.  Just one more way that public multi-tenant scenarios remain efficient – by passing the long wait times on to you.

Hosted Dedicated

Governance baked into the support model  If you’re going with a dedicated hosting solution, and you’ve picked a top tier provider, you have the leverage to get your support protocol tailored to work the way your organization works, rather than the other way around.  Take advantage of this tremendous benefit of a dedicated model.

Clear separation of admin duties  The concept here is the same as with public multi-tenant, except in a dedicated solution you have the ability to go even further with delineating specific duties that the provider has and that your administrative personnel have.  Take the time to define a detailed RACI matrix of tasks, and make sure that you retain the flexibility to adjust this somewhat as your solution and relationship with your provider evolves.  The best providers offer terrific, tailored support models that make the provider act as an extension of your own team. 

No sharing of application with your provider’s other customers  If you can’t share the application and its data with other customers of the same provider, and you can’t be successful hosting on-premise, then a dedicated hosting solution is the best bet for you.

Full-featured SharePoint to the degree infrastructure can support  Unlike on-premise, where the capabilities of SharePoint were essentially limited only by the skills and resources available to the IT department, hosted dedicated models generally remove that challenge, such that SharePoint’s features are limited only by the infrastructure on which the solution is built.  As with on-premises solutions, there is still the need to contemplate how to handle the sudden need for added capacity.

More flexibility to customize than with Multi-Tenant   SPCloud3g Public multi-tenant solutions are not very flexible and don’t typically allow for much in the way of customization.  The reason for this is obvious.  If you were to do something unusual, and screw something up, it could affect the Provider’s other customers negatively.  A dedicated solution all but eliminates that risk, because you are not sharing the application with the provider’s other customers.  If you are using a hosted dedicated solution, you have every right to expect a lot of freedom to customize your solution.

Generally the provider offers a support team that is well aware of your unique solution  This is the “with great power comes great responsibility” item…  Going hand in hand with added customization flexibility is the need for a very consistent support team.  Once you go off in your own direction, a call center loses the ability to follow the typical script in order to help you.  Therefore, it is critical that you have a consistent set of designated people who are specifically charged with helping to ensure your success with SharePoint.

Next up: Part 4 - What questions should we be asking potential providers?

Monday, May 31, 2010

Should We Put SharePoint In the Cloud? – Part 2 of 7

BG (2) I hope you enjoyed Part 1 of this series, or saw my talk at SharePoint Saturday DC recently.  If not, please go back and read Part 1 at the link below.

This 7-part series consists of the following:

Part 1 – Should we host on-premises or with a provider? (Can we do both?)

Part 2 - Do we need a dedicated solution, or is multi-tenant going to work for our needs?

Part 3 - If we make the leap, what do we lose?  What do we gain?

Part 4 - What questions should we be asking potential providers?

Part 5 - Who are the leading providers?

Part 6 - How do we select the right provider for our unique needs?

Part 7 - How do we make the business case internally?


Part 2 – Do we need a dedicated solution, or is multi-tenant going to work for our needs?

When you’re considering outsourcing the hosting and management of SharePoint, you’ll quickly discover that a key decision to make is whether you can live with the constraints of a multi-tenant solution, or if you require a dedicated solution.  Or perhaps some kind of hybrid.

Just to make sure it’s clear what I’m talking about, let me clarify what a multi-tenant solution actually is.

“Multitenancy refers to a principle in software architecture where a single instance of the software runs on a server, serving multiple client organizations (tenants)…

“With a multitenant architecture, a software application is designed to virtually partition its data and configuration so that each client organization works with a customized virtual application instance… 

“Multitenancy is contrasted with multi-instance (aka “dedicated”) architecture where separate software instances (or BGhardware systems) are set up for different client organizations.” (Source: )


Is there a 3rd option?  Of course!  Isn’t there always?

That same wikipedia article goes on to say “An increasingly viable alternative route to multitenancy that eliminates the need for significant BG (1)architectural change is to use virtualization technology to host multiple isolated instances of an application on one or more servers.” 

Fortunately, you can definitely choose an option that works for you from among these choices.

In the case of SharePoint, there are several vendors, including Microsoft themselves, that are offering SharePoint in a hosted multi-tenant model.  This would mean literally that your organization would be sharing an instance of SharePoint with one or more of your provider’s other customers.  Microsoft calls this model SharePoint Online Standard (it also includes the SharePoint component of BPOS, Microsoft’s so-called Business Productivity Online Suite).

But, buyer beware.  There are a few key considerations with this approach that must be thought through carefully. 

First of all, MOSS 2007 didn’t actually have a good story around multi-tenancy, so it required some serious hacking of the underlying SharePoint source code (an obvious no-no for anyone but Microsoft themselves, if even they should have been doing it) to get it to work, unless you simply set up a farm and assigned individual site collections as “tenants,” or something along those lines.  This was far from a perfect scenario for a number of reasons.

Secondly, depending on how you are using SharePoint and what kind of compliance standards or other requirements your organization must comply with, you may find that sharing not only infrastructural components, but also the instance of SharePoint itself is simply not acceptable.   For example, as rigorous as Microsoft has been with testing SharePoint, in a multi-tenant hosting environment, there exists the possibility, however slight, that a flaw could be detected and exploited, and that could have an effect on your system and/or your data.  However minimal the chance may be, using a dedicated database and dedicated instance of the application is a sure-fire way to eliminate this particular risk.

Third, there were and still are significant trade-offs in features and customization flexibility – or the lack thereof -- that would tend to eliminate some of the benefit the supposed savings offered by multi-tenancy in the first place.   That is, buying SharePoint in a multi-tenant fashion because it’s cheap might mean you are prevented from doing some of the very things that could transform your business if SharePoint were to be used to its full potential.

Then, there is the fact that even now SharePoint Online does not provide SharePoint 2010 at all, let alone full-featured SharePoint 2010.  It will be late 2010 before SharePoint Online is upgraded to SharePoint 2010, and as much as another year or more before it becomes “full-featured” SharePoint 2010.   If you want SharePoint 2010 right now, this simply is not an option for you.

And in case you’re wondering, any other provider offering multi-tenant SharePoint is most likely using the same multi-tenancy features and capabilities that SharePoint Online is using, AND/OR they have custom-crafted some sort of multi-tenancy capability of their own.  All well and good, but in the latter case, if Microsoft updates the core bits as they must do over the next few months and years, the provider you are working with has to be very sharp on keeping their customizations up to date, or you run the risk of suffering the consequences.

Generally, you and/or your organization are going to fall into one of two schools of thought when it comes to multi-tenancy.

The first school says, despite all the considerations, and despite the inherent limitations and constraints of multi-tenancy with SharePoint, we can’t overlook the low cost of the multi-tenancy approach.  If you’ve really thought it through carefully and you are truly confident that you’ve made the right choice for your business, good for you.  Have at it.

The other school of thought, however, is going to decide that they need to focus on a dedicated application instance of SharePoint.

Maybe you need SharePoint 2010 for its Social Networking features, or for the Business Connectivity Services, or some other feature-based reason, and waiting for SharePoint Online to catch up is a delay that simply won’t align with your funding calendar.  

Maybe there’s just too much risk in a provider’s customized method for achieving multi-tenancy in MOSS 2007. 

Whatever the case may be, it is important to keep in mind that ruling out multi-tenancy and making the decision to go with a dedicated SharePoint solution does NOT mean that you are forced to go with a strictly on-premise solution.

It is possible to run a dedicated instance of SharePoint (2007 or 2010) right now in a number of hosting scenarios, ranging from utility computing, to co-lo to fully managed application models.

If you’ve decided to focus on a dedicated instance of the SharePoint application itself, then you need to consider whether you require fully dedicated infrastructure and physical servers, or if there are elements of the infrastructure that can be part of a utility or shared infrastructure platform, in order to get more value at those levels.

For example, if you go for fully dedicated hardware, you’re going to have to purchase enough horsepower to handle your anticipated peak loads.  This may include clustering the database, allocating more RAM and CPU that needed, purchasing powerful host machines on which to deploy virtual machines, etc.

But if you opt for a platform that offers dynamic scaling capabilities, you can right size your environment for current demand and grow as needed, including bursting for spikes, and pay for only what you are actually allocating or using, depending on the pricing model offered by your provider.

One very attractive option that I see more and more customers looking at, is what I’ve most commonly called Multi-tenancy in a Private Cloud.  This is a scenario where the customer organization (such as yours) purchases a dedicated application instance, and then activates multi-tenancy in SharePoint 2010 in order to provision tenants corresponding to their internal business units.  This is very attractive as a method for facilitating some sort of chargeback model where the business units pay IT for the computing resources they consume, but this approach is still constrained in many of the same ways that traditional hosting multi-tenancy is, as noted above.

Can you live with SharePoint multi-tenancy as it exists today?  Can you wait for what it may become later?  Or does it just make more sense to work with a provider to stand up a dedicated instance for your organization? BG (3)

There is arguably no more significant decision that you have to make when deciding whether or not to outsource the hosting and management of SharePoint.  Make this decision carefully.

Coming next…

Part 3 - If we make the leap, what do we lose?  What do we gain?

Sunday, May 23, 2010

SharePoint Saturday DC Speakers Twitter and Blog Directory

SharePoint Saturday DC on May 15, 2010, was an amazing FREE event thanks to the efforts of everyone involved, especially Dux, Dan, Jenn and Gino, and next year’s event (Two days of SharePoint “Saturday” -- Friday is the new Saturday!–- May 20-21, 2011) already has all the signs of being something spectacular as well.

Check out video of Dux and Marcy Kellar performing “Empire State of SharePoint” during the keynote.
Photo by and

I met a lot of people at the event who weren’t using Twitter, or who were new to SharePoint and were attending SharePoint Saturday as their first step in tapping into the thriving SharePoint community.

For those folks, as well as anyone else who may need a quick reference, I thought I’d put together a list of twitter handles and blog links for all of the speakers who were at the event, including me.  I know you can build your own lists on Twitter, but I figured people new to Twitter might not know how to do that yet.

For new Twitter users who are having trouble getting the hang of using Twitter effectively, I recommend downloading an application like Tweet Deck which allows you to filter Twitter easily according to hash tags. 

And, of course, you need to remember to put the appropriate hash tags into your posts if you want to get the attention of the community who may not know you yet. 

The most relevant hashtags I see used for SharePoint topics include the following, among several others:

#spsdc (specifically about SharePoint Saturday DC)
#spsnyc (the next SharePoint Saturday event, in New York City)

Lastly, new Twitter users should keep in mind that Twitter posts and blogs are broadcast messages.  Unlike Facebook personal profiles where your friend request has to be accepted by the other party before you can see their posts, people who blog and post to Twitter WANT you to read their posts.  So, go ahead, follow everyone on the list!


PS – Don’t forget to fill out your session evaluation forms!  I’m sure the other speakers appreciate the feedback as much as I do!

Speaker Twitter handle Blog
Anderson, Marc
Bamboo Solutions
Becraft, Jeff
Bonebrake, Ash Unknown! Please leave a comment!
Bordner, Sean
Bradley, Ben Unknown! Please leave a comment!
Brown, Carl Unknown! Please leave a comment! Unknown! Please leave a comment!
Buckley, Christian
Burkholder, John
Byrne, Tony Unknown! Please leave a comment!
Carpe, Thomas Unknown! Please leave a comment!
Carroll, Virgil
Cavusoglu, Coskun
Cawood, Stephen
Chatterjee, Supriyo "SB"
Christian, Pat Unknown! Please leave a comment! Unknown! Please leave a comment!
Cohen-Dumani, Daniel Unknown! Please leave a comment!
Coleman, Dave
Culver, Brian
Davis, Jeremy Unknown! Please leave a comment! Unknown! Please leave a comment!
Deverter, Jeff
Dew, Cathy
Dostalek, Kevin
Doyle, Michael
Earles, Joy
Eleazer, Shadeed
English, Bill Unknown! Please leave a comment!
Fallon, Tom Unknown! Please leave a comment! Unknown! Please leave a comment!
Fowler, Steven
Frette, David
Furuknap, Bjorn Unknown! Please leave a comment! Unknown! Please leave a comment!
Gallicchio, Jason Unknown! Please leave a comment! Unknown! Please leave a comment!
Galvin, Paul
Gotz, Ruven
Guillory, Mike Unknown!  Please leave a comment! Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Hall, Janis Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Harbridge, Richard
Harlan, Eric
Henry, Susan
Herres, Mick Unknown!  Please leave a comment! Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Herrity, Mike
Hild, Ed Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Hinckley, Michael
Hirmas, James Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Holliday, John
Isserman, Becky
Jackett, Brian
Johnson, Tom Unknown!  Please leave a comment! Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Kaplan, Bethany Unknown!  Please leave a comment! Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Keller, Marcy
Kitta, Todd
Klein, Tracey Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Klinchin, Mark
Lathrop, Matthew Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Lennon, Susan
Levithan, Adam
Lewis, Dan
Lightfoot, Johnathan
Lin, Tom Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Lotter, Michael
Macaulay, Adam
McNeil, Deanna
McNulty, Chris
Miller, Mark
Miller, Tom Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Moore, John F.
Oryszak, Mike
Palhano, Ricardo Unknown!  Please leave a comment! Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Patel, Parth Unknown!  Please leave a comment! Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Perera, Chanaka Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Price, Ken
Rackley, Mark
Resing, Tom
Resnick, Matthew Unknown!  Please leave a comment! Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Rodriguez, Carlos Unknown!  Please leave a comment! Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Saini, Ram Kumar Unknown!  Please leave a comment! Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Simberkoff, Dana
Singleton Scott
Sistla, Srini
Songvilay, Tiffany
Sotnikov, Ilia
Spicuzzi, Scott Unknown!  Please leave a comment! Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Strah, PhD, Marie-Michelle Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Stubbs, Paul
Surma, Bonnie Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Sy, Dux Raymond
Taylor, Mike
Taylor, Rick
Usher, Dan
Ussia, Sandy
Vander Wal, Thomas (Protects Tweets)
Velez, Jaime Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Varosky, Geoff
Ward, Joel
Ward, John Unknown!  Please leave a comment! Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Watson, Mike
Wells, Edward Unknown!  Please leave a comment!
Wheeler, Christina
Williams, Fabian
Windsor, Rob