Re: [sca-assembly] RECOMMENDATION: Stand up new SC

[Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>]

Jeff,

You are welcome to make a proposal along
these lines to the Assembly TC.

As Martin points out in his note, a
number of alternative approaches to handling the Event Processing proposal
were discussed in the TC, which resulted
in the current compromise approach.  There was a discussion of having
a subcommittee - and the Assembly TC
has a Testing Subcommittee as a practical example of that approach.
However, some folk on the TC were not
happy with the inability of the subcommittee to make decisions (ie every
actual decision has to be made by the
full TC), which resulted in the idea of a subcommittee not being chosen.

However, if you think that a subcommittee
would be better than the current compromise arrangements, it is
something that we can discuss at a future
meeting.  It would be useful if other folk on the committee could

express their views on this to the mailing
list.


Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com

From:	"Estefan, Jeff A (3100)" <jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov>
To:	"'OASIS Assembly'" <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	10/09/2009 15:33
Subject:	[sca-assembly] RECOMMENDATION: Stand up new SC

---

Mike and Martin,
 
Given the growing discussion thread surrounding
issue ASSEMBLY 80 on creating an event processing model for SCA, and the
more recent issues regarding adding SCA support for pub/sub in general,
may I recommend that you stand up a new Subcommittee (SC) under the auspices
of the SCA-Assembly TC.  This is very easy to do under the OASIS framework.
 It has the advantage of being able to appoint an SC chair (or co-chairs),
create a separate Kavi space for capturing SC artifacts, meeting announcements,
etc., and, perhaps most importantly, any recommended technical products
emerging from the SC must still pass a full vote of the parent TC; in this
case, the SCA-Assembly TC.  Anish, Martin, and others have done an
outstanding job in crafting candidate solutions to address issue ASSEMBLY
80; however, there is clearly a lot of work still to do and dissension
still remains on a solution set.  In other words, a final solution
that we can all live with does not appear imminent; hence, the need to
stand up a separate SC.  Just a suggestion.
 
Now, even if we were to standup a new SC,
my personal feeling is that every effort should be made to get the current
(non-eventing) SCA-Assembly spec  ratified as an OASIS standard at
the very earliest possible date.  It is only when these specs become
formal industry standards that we will be able to enforce its conformance
criteria with the ultimate goal of full interoperability of the solutions
that implement these specs.
 
Note that I will be on travel next week
and unable to attend both the TC meeting on Tue and supporting eventing
discussion on Wed so if this issue comes up, I won’t be available to address
any questions regarding standing up an SC.  Nevertheless, it’s very
easy to do and our friends from the OASIS staff can assist us.  We’ve
done it readily on other TCs I serve.
 
Regards…
 
 - Jeff E.

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU