RE: [business-transaction] Comments on today's conference call

[Pal Takacsi-Nagy <pal.takacsi@bea.com>]

Alan,

 

thanks for your message. You are bringing up a lot of good points.

I would like to re-iterate the motivation behind my proposal to re-visit the scope, which is maximizing the ease of adoption. In my opinion the current scope is too large for wide adoption. Therefore the suggestion is to go back to a smaller scope. We are working on a concrete list that highlights the areas, where we suggest reduction in functionality.

As far as BEA's participation: we started this effort, since we thought that this is an area, where we need a standard and BEA had some ideas how to go about defining it.

Standards must be a good thing, that's why there are so many of them :) If a standard diverges from one company's vision to a great degree it is that company's call to determine, whether they still want to support the standard or not. BEA has to make this call in regards to the current state of BTP.

 

Thanks: Pal 

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Davies [mailto:ADavies@SeeBeyond.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 12:30 PM
To: 'business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: [business-transaction] Comments on today's conference call

All,

 

I am somewhat surprised and concerned about the process employed in this Technical Committee.

 

My previous experience of such working groups (primarily with X/Open) is that a 'ratchet' effect is desired, in which, after having agreed which way is forward (i.e. what the requirements are which we're trying to meet), we all aim to ensure that changes will result in overall progress in that direction.

 

However, sometimes it is the case that in order to go forward, we must go back a little. 

 

It is encumbent on any member making any change proposal to offer a convincing explanation why the end result will be a net gain.  It is also in the interests of the proposing member to do so, otherwise the work put into developing the proposed change will be wasted if it is voted down.  Generally speaking, the bigger the proposed step backward, the stronger and more comprehensive is required the case for why it will eventually be beneficial.

 

I would expect at this stage of development of a specification that the current document should be under change control, and that any proposed changes are made in writing, with reference to the current working document.  Members should be given several days to evaluate,consider and comment on proposed changes before being asked to vote on them.  Members should be encouraged to provide explanations of their reasons for a NO vote.  A proposed change which is voted down should be able to be resubmitted - suitably reworked to deal with previous objections.

 

BEA believes it has a strong case for a making one or more major changes to the current working specification.  I would welcome seeing these presented as complete and comprehensive change requests, delivered to the group as described above, for our consideration. 

 

I would also expect BEA to honorably accept the decisions of the group with respect to such change requests when dealt with as described above, and continue to be a valuable and active member of the group.

 

I believe we are all reasonable people - let's keep moving forward.

 

Regards, Alan. 

Optimizing eBusiness

---

Alan Davies

VP Standards & Product Strategy
ph:   (626)471-6050 (direct)

cell: (626)437-0272

Email:adavies@SeeBeyond.com
www.SeeBeyond.com

---