RE: [bpel4people] BPEL4People TC - Which Accepted Issues to Work On?

["Mark Ford" <mark.ford@activevos.com>]

I'd like to discuss the following issues on the next call (or over email)

 

Issue 2: Defer Activation Time is missing from HT protocol message

- Do we have enough information to resolve this issue now? Someone raised the point that the previous proposal was incomplete so I sent an email to the list yesterday that has more information. I can provide the exact spec changes by line number but what I've submitted seems enough for an editor to go and make the necessary changes.

 

Issue 6: Does ht:getLogicalPeopleGroup() cause an LPG to evaluate?

- I don't expect this issue to get resolved on the call but I'd like to hear the thoughts from some other members. The spec is really vague here.

 

Issue 11: Initialization of process generic human roles in b4p

- I'd like to hear why we require these elements in the process definition since they can only use static data. I see the value in having the custom functions, but I'm not clear as to why the roles are required to be defined within the process definition.

 

 

---

From: Dave Ings [mailto:ings@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 11:57 AM
To: bpel4people@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [bpel4people] BPEL4People TC - Which Accepted Issues to Work On?

Regarding the draft agenda for this week's B4P TC, in addition to discussing the two items forwarded below, I would like to propose that the remainder of the meeting be a working session to begin to develop proposals for previously accepted issues.

So I would like to seek suggestions as to which (say) 2-3 accepted issues would be appropriate to add to this week's agenda.

Regards, Dave Ings,
Emerging Software Standards
Email: ings@ca.ibm.com
Yahoo Messenger: dave_ings
----- Forwarded by Dave Ings/Toronto/IBM on 2008/05/12 11:51 AM -----

From:	Dave Ings/Toronto/IBM
To:	bpel4people@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:	2008/05/08 05:28 PM
Subject:	Next B4P TC Meeting - Two Discussion Topics

---

Hi,

I wanted to seed the TC with two topics for discussion at the 
next TC. Comments to the list in advance of the meeting are of course 
welcome!

1. First TC F2F

During a previous TC we agreed to 
tentatively schedule our first F2F in Walldorf (Germany) the week of June 9th, 
and that we'd make a final decision in mid-May. Given the issues list is now 
primed, I think we could have a productive F2F, with main meeting goal to be to 
work all the open issues and come up with proposed resolutions. A secondary (but 
very important!) goal would be to continue to build team spirit and working 
relationships.

I have conferred with SAP (who has agreed to host) and if 
the TC so decides we could run the F2F from noon Monday June 9th through noon 
Wednesday 11th. The noon to noon arrangement will minimize travel disruption. 
Note that while it will be possible to participate by phone, it will be more 
effective to be there in person.

Finally, the meeting will need to 
achieve quorum to be effective. Could voting members come to the 5/14 TC 
prepared to let me know whether they intend to participate in person (assuming 
the TC votes to confirm the meeting). We currently have 26 voting 
members.

2. Collaboration Model

Hats off to Mark Ford and 
the rest of the Editor's SC for priming our issues list and getting us going. 
The next question we face as a team is what is the right collaboration model(s) 
to develop issue resolution proposals?

We could develop all proposed 
resolutions in "group mode" in TC meetings and/or in the F2F. While this is very 
democratic <g> like democracy it isn't always the most effective 
approach.

We could ask for volunteers, or small teams of volunteers, and 
"assign" individual issues to them, to develop a resolution "offline" followed 
by discussion and review with the full TC.

Or we could go with some blend 
of the above, perhaps predicated on the contentiousness or scope of the 
issue.

Note that I am only suggesting how a *draft* issue resolution 
might be developed. The full TC always has to review and approve any resolution 
prior to it being assigned to the Editing SC for incorporation into the 
spec.

Regards, Dave Ings,
Emerging Software Standards
Email: 
ings@ca.ibm.com 
Yahoo Messenger: dave_ings