Re: [soa-rm-ra] stakeholders summary

[Michael Stiefel <development@reliablesoftware.com>]

When I was in graduate school, I did a paper on a then very famous law 
journal review article "Do Trees Have Standing?"

Using Google to refresh my memory it was written by Christopher Stone, a 
University of Southern California law professor in 1969.

The Sierra Club had sued Walt Disney over some commercial development. 
Ultimately it went to the Supreme Court which ruled that the Sierra Club 
had no standing to sue. I believe Justice Douglas cited the paper in his 
dissent.

Michael

At 11:06 AM 8/24/2006, Francis McCabe wrote:
>+1
>And good for Reston!
>
>I think that the judge had it wrong. Even if the trees had no legal
>standing, people do. And the loss of trees can result in a loss to
>people in the neighborhood. I suspect that that ruling would not
>survive an appeal.
>
>BTW: I am not a lawyer, so the above is just an opinion...
>
>I think that you need to expand the scope of stakeholders a little:
>
>-- service hosts
>-- service mediators (brokers, etc.)
>-- service discovery agencies
>
>Frank
>
>On Aug 24, 2006, at 7:51 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:
>
>> From the ftf, we had
>>- direct participants
>>   -- providers
>>   -- consumers
>>- regulatory authorities
>>- non-participants (innocent bystanders/"victims")
>>
>>My initial question to the list was whether the direct participants
>>were *service* providers and *service* consumers or whether there
>>were other providers (and by extension, other consumers and
>>participants).
>>
>> From the discussion so far, I would say the ftf list covers the
>>territory and the direct participants are indeed always dealing
>>with services.  However, the non-participants can include anyone
>>(and possibly anything) else, and their identification is context
>>dependent.
>>
>>An anecdote that has some relevance:
>>Last week a judge ruled against a neighborhood group who was trying
>>to block construction of the new Yankee Stadium.  The neighborhood
>>group said the loss of the nearby park and trees would have a
>>devastating effects on the community.  The judge ruled that the
>>trees had no legal standing.  My daughter's immediate response was,
>>"They do in Reston!"  Now I live in Reston, one of the original
>>planned communities, and here you have to make sure your basketball
>>backboards are the right color.  Notwithstanding those
>>philosophical battles, one of the differences in development in
>>Reston is they generally try to save the existing trees rather than
>>clear cutting and just plowing everything under.  The result is
>>actually quite nice.  In any case, context will often define the
>>most relevant (for modeling purposes) non-participatory stakeholders.
>>
>>Ken
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>--------------------
>>Ken Laskey
>>MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934
>>7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-983-1379
>>McLean VA 22102-7508
>