+1 to starting work sooner rather than later.
On 27 Oct 2009, at 03:48, Vaught, Jeffrey A wrote:
Glad you brought this up J I’m wondering if we need to “get to the real work” sooner than later, or possibly risk waning interest from our non-members. In other words, spend first 30 minutes on restating some of the issues/concerns we had with the Spec, and then the last 20-30 minutes on the TC rename. The TC rename might take a couple weeks to get consensus, and at least we would start to dig into the Spec. I took an action item to detail three possible actions that should be explicitly considered, IMHO, rather than deciding “by default.” If there is interest, perhaps this should be discussed at the next meeting, make the decisions we need to, and then move on to the real work, as they say. Change the name of the base spec: Is the time for this past? I don’t know. On one hand, both “Symptom” and “Autonomic” have caused (and are still causing) tremendous confusion. If it is not clear why, I can elaborate, but I hope the reasons are clear to us all. Heck, Symptom is not even necessarily the most important entity in our information model! On the other hand, OASIS has promoted SAF a bit and there has been some small notice of it amongst some respected people in the standards community. It may be that we have already paid the confusion price up front and now we can benefit from a fairly unique name. Symptoms Autonomic Framework (SAF) is that, I grant. Either way, this TC should decide if it wants to change the name. If so, sooner is better than later. A subtext of this discussion is the commitment to a medical analogy, perhaps. Some possible alternative names (better ones no doubt exist and should be volunteered please): · FOR: “Framework for Optimization and Remediation” (simple and sweet or too simple?) · FORAD: Framework for Optimization and Remediation Across Domains (in the Urban Dictionary it also is a composite of “For Real” and “Radical”) · FDT: “Framework for Diagnosis and Treatment” (possibly too medical again) The TC procedure, I believe, would be for us to agree to all charter changes. Then we would have to make a motion for the TC Admin to make a Charter Clarification Ballot. There is a 7-day ballot that 2/3’s of the TC must approve. Given the current size of the TC, this should not be hard if we agree we need to do it. Once approved, OASIS updates the website. We should add to the FAQ, IMHO, that the name change was for clarity. · Remove medical analogy and just go straight IT? Is this really necessary or helpful? Not worth it if we don’t change the name of the TC. · Add a Cloud Profile? I admit that my initial thoughts are this is a good idea. Cloud is hot and SAF could be uniquely useful to the cloud in complicated, cross-domain applications, I think. It would broaden the scope of interest and at the same time most of the folks involved are also interested in Cloud. Of course, your mileage and perspective might vary considerably. VP, Industry Standards and Open Source Member, CA Council for Technical Excellence Phone (preferred number!): +1 215 539-2731 THIS MESSAGE MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL, PRIVILEGED OR OTHER LEGALLY PROTECTED INFORMATION. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE ADDRESSEE ONLY. IF YOU ARE NOT THE ADDRESSEE (OR SOMEONE THE ADDRESSEE AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE THIS MESSAGE), YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM COPYING, DISTRIBUTING OR OTHERWISE USING IT. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER AND RETURN IT AT OUR COST. THANK YOU.
Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com >
Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Limited
Hayes Park Central
Hayes End Road
Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE
Reg. No. 4153469