[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] New BPEL Issue process - please read - will effect yournew issues
Danny, That is my recollection as well. It was deemed too difficult to achieve a super-majority of the whole voting membership, when meetings typically barely reach quorum. -Ron Danny van der Rijn wrote: > i brought this point up at our last call, and i think we decided to > make it a supermajority of present members. can't find the minutes > right now to confirm. > > Yaron Y. Goland wrote: > >> 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> >>> >>> >>> >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster >> of the OASIS TC), go to >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php. >> >> >> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster > of the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]