Re: [wsbpel] New BPEL Issue process - please read - will effect yournew issues

["Yaron Y. Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>]

I had understood that we only required a super majority of present 
members, not a super majority of the entire group. I believe that 
requiring a super majority of the entire group penalizes those who show 
up for meetings.

	Thanks,
		Yaron

Diane Jordan wrote:

> 
> On the last call, I promised to send an email restating the process for 
> opening issues that we discussed and adopted on the call.  Here it is 
> and I've taken the opportunity to use Tony's proposal as an example.   
> (Tony, hope you don't mind being the test case).    
> 
> 1. proposed issues will be reviewed on the TC call if they are received 
> 7 or more days before the call.  (Thus this one will be reviewed on the 
> call Sept 15).  
> 2. on that call, we will first ask if there are any objections to 
> opening the proposed issues as a bug.   If there are none, we will open 
> the issue, end of process.
> 3. If there are objections, we will have a vote (requiring simple 
> majority) on whether it is bug related.  This will be not be done 
> immediately - it will be done either by web ballot starting immediately 
> after the meeting or at the next meeting (in this case the f2f on Sept 
> 21-23).   The decision on whether to use the web ballot or wait till the 
> next meeting will be based on whether we desire further discussion about 
> whether it is a bug or not on the next call before the ballot.        
> If the ballot results in it being considered a bug, we will open the 
> issue, end of process
> 4. If the ballot to declare it a bug doesn't pass,  there will be a 
> second ballot, held right away (for this eg, Sept 21-23), on whether to 
> allow it to be opened.  
> ---------> Note that since we've decided this ballot to open a non-bug 
> will require a super majority and that is based on full voting 
> membership rather than quorum, we may not be able to hold it if there 
> aren't enough members in the meeting.   If there are enough attendees 
> (ie, at least 2/3 of voting members), we will vote immediately - if it 
> fails, and the number of absences are such that it could pass if they 
> all voted for it, we will defer the decision and vote via web ballot 
> starting immediately after the call/meeting.   The web ballot will run 
> for 7 days per the OASIS process.  From our general attendance rates, 
> its probable we will usually be able to have the initial vote on our 
> call but will have to go to the web ballot if there are more than a 
> couple folks who don't want it opened.  
> If the second ballot to open the issue passes, we open the issue, end of 
> process.    
> If the ballot to open the issue does not pass, the issue will move 
> directly to closed status and the "revisitable" flag will be set, end of 
> process.  
> 
> Again, just as an example, best case we could decide this is a bug and 
> open it on the call Sept. 15, or worst case, it could be Sept 30 before 
> we've resolved what to do.   (This is one week less than most cases 
> because the f2f in Sept means we have meetings 3 weeks in a row).  
> 
> Any questions?  
>  
> Regards, Diane
> IBM  Emerging Internet Software Standards
> drj@us.ibm.com
> (919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123, Fax 845-491-5709
> 
> 
> 
> *"Tony Fletcher" <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>*
> 
> 08/27/2004 12:54 PM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	<wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	[wsbpel] New BPEL Issue - add explicit conformance statements / section
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
>  
> I move that we accept a new "bug" issue into the issues list concerned 
> with adding an explicit set of conformance statements, preferably in a 
> conformance section, to the specification for 'BPEL'.  The rationale and 
> a draft proposal is given in the attached document.
>  
> Resolving this issue will not lead to the addition of any new features.. 
>  However, it will enhance and clarify the text in a significant manner 
> and therefore is worth tackling at this time.
>  
> The process of adding such a conformance section will cause us to think 
> about and address the following questions:
>  
> For what sort of 'things' can conform to the BPEL specification?
>  
> For each type of 'thing' for which conformance can be claimed, what 
> precisely does that thing have to be / do / not do to be conformant.
>  
> Best Regards,
> Tony/                           /
> 
> <http://www.choreology.com/> 	Tony Fletcher
> Technical Advisor
> Choreology Ltd.
> 68, Lombard Street, London EC3V 9L J   UK
> Phone:   	+44 (0) 1473 729537
> Mobile: 	+44 (0) 7801 948219
> Fax:     	+44 (0) 870 7390077
> Web: 	www.choreology.com <http://www.choreology.com/>
> Cohesions™
> Business transaction management software for application coordination
> Work: tony.fletcher@choreology.com
> Home: amfletcher@iee.org <mailto:amfletcher@iee.org>
> 
>  
>