Re: [ebsoa] Groups - Provisional Charter (Draft)(NEW-Charter-v0dot1_DRAFT.doc) uploaded

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

Jamie:

Thanks - this clarifies our choices since this does radically expand our 
scope and deliverables.  It therefore seems that if:

1. A group of people want to complete the work that the current TC 
should be dependent on (*SOA Reference Model); and (optionally)

2. There are a group who wishes to keep the current TC alive and pursue 
that charter in parallel

then we have no choice but to pursue opening a new TC and leaving the 
existing one for the next 45 days as you suggest.

Everyone who is a voting member seems to be in support of this.  In 
fairness, we realize there are observers who may wish to get up to speed 
on the groups work then work on the existing charter.  We will do 
everything in our power to allow this to happen if there is serious 
interest as we feel we did do some good work in the last 6 months.

DUane

James Bryce Clark wrote:

> To:  ebSOA TC
>
>      I have two concerns about the plans articulated in this document 
> and the informal notes from the last ebSOA TC meeting.  I am in Korea 
> this week, so attendance at your December 8th meeting will be 
> difficult (as it will occur at 3 am for me).  In any case, I ask the 
> TC to take a slightly slower path towards any fundamental changes to 
> your deliverables and objectives.
>     First, I have a purely rules-based concern about how to execute 
> the proposed change.  As you know, changes to the scope of a TC that 
> significantly change its field of operations generally are prohibited 
> under our TC Process.  (This is not because it' a bad idea, but 
> because observers and members rely on the charter for each TC to 
> encapsulate its topic.)  A TC *may* significantly change direction, 
> but if it expands its scope, we ask it to do so by closing and 
> re-opening.  You can see several successful examples of this on our 
> site, including the evolution of the "Management Protocol" TC into the 
> very successful (but more broadly scoped) WSDM TC.  See 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/mgmtprotocol/200302/msg00001.html.
>     Thus, if the TC wishes to execute on the strategy being 
> considered, I suggest that the TC not vote to close *until* the new TC 
> charter is up and running (as with WSDM).  I would be pleased to 
> discuss this further with the TC at a meeting.
>
>     Second, and more significantly, I am concerned that there are some 
> members who wish to pursue the original deliverables of the current 
> ebSOA TC charter.   User and industry expectations encouraged around 
> the ebSOA TC might be significantly deflated, if the existing TC seems 
> to revert its attention wholly to architectures, and deprecate its 
> planned examination of ebXML<>web service interoperability.   That 
> latter project is in some demand.  Just today I attended in Korea a 
> remarkable and rather advanced presentation on hybrid ebXML/WS methods.
>     Thus, I would like to confirm that the part of the community 
> interested in those deliverables is able to continue them, if they 
> wish.  It would be unfortunate if the subtle changes in work plans 
> being considered were misread, from the outside, as a withdrawal from 
> some of the goals strongly articulated by this TC's proposers during 
> the launch 8 months ago.
>     I have briefly discussed this with Duane and it's my understanding 
> that he is amenable to the following approach
>    -- Leave the present TC in operation over the next ~6 weeks.  (45 
> days is the incubation period for a new TC.)
>    -- Complete the "rechartering" project as a drafting exercise, 
> taking the time for consensus and broader community input if there is 
> interest.  (I am inclined to suggest that a discussion list 
> immediately be requested, to provide a separate channel for that, 
> which would allow nonmembers to surveill and express interest.)
>     -- We will chat with members about possible continuation of the 
> existing TC with a slightly different membership and additional 
> leadership, as desirable, to fulfill some of the original objectives, 
> and populate that option during the same 4-6 week period.
>     In this manner we could support all of the expectations of our 
> heterogenous community, and I will formally suggest this when we are 
> able to meet.
>     Best regards  JBC
>
>
> At 02:46 PM 12/7/2004, dnickull@adobe.com wrote:
>
>> The document named Provisional Charter (Draft) 
>> (NEW-Charter-v0dot1_DRAFT.doc) has been submitted by Duane Nickull to 
>> the OASIS Electronic Business Service Oriented Architecture (ebSOA) 
>> TC document repository. Document Description: Draft of potential new 
>> charter for re-chartering group. Download Document: 
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebsoa/download.php/10488/NEW-Charter-v0dot1_DRAFT.doc 
>> View Document Details: 
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebsoa/document.php?document_id=10488 
>> PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email 
>> application may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be 
>> able to copy and paste the entire link address into the address field 
>> of your web browser. -OASIS Open Administration
>
>
> ~   James Bryce Clark
> ~   Director, Standards Development, OASIS
> ~   +1 978 667 5115 x 203 central office
> ~   +1 310 293 6739 mobile


-- 
***********
Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
Chair - OASIS eb SOA TC - http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ebsoa
***********