[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] [Please indicate if you believe pulse check would be valuable] RE: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA, etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together
Yes Rebekah Associate Booz Allen Hamilton Voice: (703) 377-1471 Fax: (703) 902-3457 From: Michael Stiefel
[mailto:development@reliablesoftware.com] Yes Thanks Matt. From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com] Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 9:15 AM To: Chiusano Joseph Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA,
etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together Joe, This can play out in one of two ways: 1) Overwhelming interest by TC members on the email
list makes it obvious that discussion is required immediately. I've not
seen that yet. Could happen today. If I see that, I think I can put
up an informal poll because it would be obvious that many folks think we need a
"pulse check". 2) Your agenda request is noted by Duane when he gets
this message, and if (1) doesn't somehow resolve the issue, it can be resolved
at the next meeting. The issue probably shouldn't be about the poll, the
issue in this case should probably be the subject of the poll. -Matt On 20-May-05, at 9:05 AM, Chiusano Joseph wrote: Thanks Matt - whom do I see to get
this idea on the next meeting agenda? Or if it is easier, I would like to
please make the request now that whoever creates the next agenda includes this
idea. Clarification: Would the vote ask
whether or not this "pulse check" should be done? Or would the pulse
check itself act as the vote? I am fine either way - just want to follow our
procedures. If we do the pulse check then as a TC member, I accept, honor, and
respect the results whatever they may be. It's just the right now when I am
asked about what this TC is developing, all I can say is "we are not
sure" because we do not have consensus on what SOA is, what a reference
model is, etc. At least with this mechanism I will be able to say "our
consensus is that SOA is X", and "our consensus is that a reference
model is Y", etc. Not worried about heckling - after
all, I used to do a comedy show every Sat. night through the mid-to-late 80s
with Jay Mohr. One of us used to get heckled (although my " Joe (An Italian-American who watches
C-SPAN instead of Friends after work) Kind Regards, Joseph Chiusano Booz Allen Hamilton Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com] Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 7:36 AM To: Chiusano Joseph Cc: Duane Nickull; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA,
etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together Joe, 1. Get your idea on the next meeting agenda. 2. Attend said meeting. 3. Bring forward a motion, and ask for a eligible
person to second it. 4. It will be put to vote. Parliamentary process is wonderful, but you have to
expect lots of heckling and disagreement. -Matt (A Canadian who watches C-SPAN instead of
Friends after work) On 20-May-05, at 6:51 AM, Chiusano Joseph wrote: <Quote> This is the TC process at
work. Can we please give it a chance? </Quote> Please clarify why you believe that
a TC member asking that we poll the TC informally to gain clarification on
issues that are fundamental to the TC's mission is outside of the normal TC
process. Joe From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] Sent: Thu 5/19/2005 11:27 PM Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA,
etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together The current draft is a work in progress and we are
actively editing it now. It will change to reflect TC
consensus. What else do you want? This is the TC process at work. Can we please
give it a chance? None of us have stated that our current draft is truly
SOA, nor should we until we have TC consensus. Duane Chiusano Joseph wrote: >I would be very willing to take on documenting it,
but there is a >prerequisite that is missing, which was part of my
message in this >thread - and that is coming to agreement within
the TC as whether our >current RM is truly SOA - which also has a
prerequisite of coming to >aggrement within the TC on what we believe SOA is
(is more than 1 >service required to have SOA, are shared services
a fundamental >component, etc.). Our current draft states that
SOA is a type of EA, and >we have already determined (I believe) that that
is not the case. > >Kind Regards, >Joseph Chiusano >Booz Allen Hamilton >Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] >>Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:08 PM >>Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >>Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation,
SOA, RM vs. RA, >>etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together >> >>Joseph: >> >>I will concur that the definition between RA
and RM could use >>documenting. Is that a task you may be
willing to take on? >> >>Duane >> >>Chiusano Joseph wrote: >> >> >> >>>Duane, >>> >>>I would like to make a suggestion to help
clear up the current >>>division in our TC on some basic issues,
which I believe is truly >>>inhibiting our ability to move forward in
a unified way - and will >>>continue to do so unless we address it at
this time. >>> >>>The most prominent division that I have
perceived over the >>> >>> >>course of >> >> >>>several weeks is: "If we are defining
a reference model, what is it >>>for? Is it for a single service? (call
this >>> >>> >>"service-orientation") or >> >> >>>SOA?" IOW, "Is it SO-RM, or
SOA-RM?" >>> >>>The second most prominent division that I
have perceived over the >>>course of several weeks is: "Where is
the line drawn between RM and >>>RA?". Last week I began a thread[1]
on this question, and I >>> >>> >>thank all >> >> >>>who contributed (Matt, Duane, Ken, Rex,
Francis, any others >>> >>> >>I missed). >> >> >>>However, I think we really need to drill
down into this >>> >>> >>question more >> >> >>>and have a crystal clear answer before we
go any farther, >>> >>> >>else run the >> >> >>>risk of creating an RM that cannot easily
"bridge to" an RA. >>> >>> >>> >>> |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]