Re: [soa-rm] [Please indicate if you believe pulse check would be valuable] RE: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RMvs. RA, etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together

[Derek C FU <fuderek@hk1.ibm.com>]

Yes
._________________________.
Derek Fu - I/T Architect
Software Group
11/F, PCCW Tower, Taikoo Place, 979 King's Road, Quarry Bay, Hong Kong
mailto:FuDerek@hk1.ibm.com
Office +852 2825-6616 Fax +852 2825-0022 Mobile +852 9199-2060
"Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>

"Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>

05/20/2005 09:26 PM

To	<soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	[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

Thanks Matt.

TC members: If you believe that a "pulse check" to see where we collectively stand on these fundamental issues would be valuable (i.e. is our current RM depicting SOA or is it depicting service orientation, what is SOA, etc.) please indicate this asap. Please note that this is not asking what is your view, but would a quick pulse check to get the current overall TC view be valuable to our process moving forward.

To make it easy: You can "reply all" to this e-mail with a simply "Yes" (a pulse check would be valuable) or "No" (a pulse check would not be valuable). Or even Y or N, to save typing effort. ;)

Silence will indicate indifference.

Thanks!
Joe

Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com

---

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 "Newark, Newark" song parody used to get good responses - sometimes;)

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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>