RE: [business-transaction] Re: This Thursday's teleconference

[Mark Potts <mark.potts@talkingblocks.com>]

Like I have said  - I don't believe  - unless I am missing something  -
that we are far apart  - my concern is that we deliver a spec that is 2
things both equally important;
 
1) Comprehendible to people that are not tech geniuses :   I am not a
transaction god, but have been privy to all the f2f and calls on this
spec, however I do get lost occasionally trying to recall just why we
decided to do this or that or why the spec dictates this approach. A BTP
is a very complex problem and we need to ensure we have suitable
"onramp" facilities for people to understand the benefits of this
standards in commercial business systems and the potential application
to their pain points and opportunities. We also need to be very sure we
are answering a real problem people face today from a business
perspective not just a technical stance.
 
2) Complete and comprehensive Spec such that we do answer the problem
that people are facing today with a lack of transaction support in the
web services arena. This needs to be a technical spec and will be hard
to understand because BTP answers a difficult and hard problem. 
 
I am really pleased about the JSR because it means we will get something
tangible for the second point. My concern has and does surround the
first point. Again I am not advocating cutting scope, changing decision,
scope or anything else simply when we review the next version lets keep
point one in mind as we review.
 
Thanks for the feedback and clarification - speak to you later today.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Little [mailto:mcl@arjuna.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 2:39 AM
To: mark.potts@talkingblocks.com; 'btp'
Cc: mark@arjuna.com
Subject: [business-transaction] Re: This Thursday's teleconference



Just as Mark Little pointed out in adding scope to the specification (
ala Sazi's proposal ) the delay and complexity will hurt us, I think
myself and one or two others are simply suggesting that during the next
review phase we consider that exact same point in regard to the spec as
a whole. On the opposite side of that, I don't think that some of the
decisions we have made at points in time based should not be revisited,
decisions have been made as we have progressed based on the info and
material available at the time, but that does not mean there is never
scope to revisit them and review them  - I think that is all people are
were suggesting. I am a little confused, by this formal proposal as some
of those named were in agreement on the last call that we should
consider this point - anyhow lets discuss and hash this point Thursday,
but lets try and make it solution-oriented not confrontational.

Mark, I can understand your concern, but we need to move forward and not
backwards. If we continually revisit choices that we made days, weeks or
even months ago then we will never have anything to recommend for
adoption: and I know that's not what the majority of people on this
committee want. Obviously we can look again at some decisions, but I
think many of the concerns raised can be addressed by suitable primers,
presentations, user guids, and marketing materials, and these are all
predicated on the actual adoption of a specification.
 
So, unfortunately I think that we must stick with our original call for
vote today, and see where that leads us.
 
Mark.
 
----------------------------------------------
Dr. Mark Little ( mark@arjuna.com <mailto:mark@arjuna.com> )
Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs
Phone +44 191 2064538
Fax   +44 191 2064203