Re: [ebsoa] New Chair - John Hardin

[Matthew MacKenzie <mattm@adobe.com>]

Monica,

The question in my mind is "Why, for example, can't the ebMS team simply 
ask the ebCPPA team to place certain topics on their agenda, and have a 
joint telecon?  How does the JC model improve on this?  Why is the JC 
still small and closed?"

I have resigned from my formal role as editor of ebSOA, but I have not 
quit the TC.  I am unlikely to attend JC meetings unless the JC becomes 
more transparent/open, so the ebSOA TC will have to assign someone new 
to the JC.

Addressing Dale's comment earlier that I only attended a couple of 
meetings -- this was intentional because I did not feel that ebSOA was 
ever intended to be part of the ebXML "stack", at least not explicitly.  
It seems to be part of ebXML merely because its TC short name is ebSOA.

-Matt
Monica J. Martin wrote:

>
>>> <dale> and the ebXML JC serves as a forum for how this coordination
>>> and alignment can occur.</dale>  
>>
>>
>> mackenzie: I think that the JC is another issue that needs to be 
>> somehow addressed.  I have observed its operation for a few months 
>> now, and it does not seem to serve a really useful purpose as 
>> configured.
>>
>> Can somebody explain to me what it is supposed to be doing for us, 
>> and why what it does cannot just be done informally or in a more 
>> inclusive manner? 
>
>
> mm1: Matt, reviewing minutes may only partially indicate any ongoing 
> work or progress.  To your question re: the JC, it has made progress 
> (albeit slowly). For example, ebMS-CPPA-ebBP have been using that 
> forum to aid in aligning new specification versions, and encourage 
> comment from other JC members. This helps provide the capability to 
> continue to evolve the architecture of the set of ebXML components 
> (even if loosely). As you have resigned as ebSOA editor, who will 
> ebSOA consider to propose as a JC member, or is a question for John 
> (Hardin)? Thank you.
>