All,
Siemens would also like to express its concern with the recent 'no' vote cast for the Web Services Binding specification ballot! Voting no to a standard because
an organization views it as no longer relevant sets a bad precedent for future TC work. It puts investments made by Siemens and other companies to a serious risk just because of viewpoint of a single organization. Any organization is free to stop efforts to
promote and advance a technology, but actively hindering it close to the finish of a long lasting effort won’t benefit any future standardization work in our opinion.
We are also concerned that leaving the SCA specifications in permanent CSD status will adversely affect organizations which have invested in SCA by leaving
a cloud of IP uncertainty as Contribution Obligations will not come into force.
We believe SCA is an important technology and deserves to progress on the standardization track. We encourage Oracle to reconsider their no vote and allow
SCA and organizations interested in it to proceed.
Regards,
Emeric Kwemou Ngandeu and Philipp Konradi
From: sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Eric Johnson
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:11 PM
To: Jim Marino
Cc: sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Re: Groups - Ballot closed: "Approve SCA Web Service Binding Specification v1.1 as a Committee Specification"
All,
I'm going to pile on to Jim's comments.
On a personal level, I'm deeply offended that the members from Oracle have decided to undercut the professional value of our collective contributions to this effort, and keep us all from being able to say that we contributed to the successful completions of
this standard. Instead of merely abstaining, their vote deliberately torpedoes the efforts of so many for so long. Given that I've worked relatively closely with those of you from Oracle for so long, at least some
personal recognition for the rest of us, and our efforts, would have been gracious - even if you're forced to toe the company line. But no.
On a professional level, given the absence of technical concerns behind the "no" votes, I think I need to relate back to the rest of my company that Oracle's presence on any future TC should perhaps be considered toxic to the work of that TC:
- Oracle might torpedo a specification near the end of an effort, leaving a cloud of IP-uncertainty over the use of the technologies covered by the spec.
- Oracle's TC involvement should be treated as suspect - the TC may just end up being an enormous waste of the time, because Oracle may behave like the playground bully, and take all the toys and head home.
Not sure this is really the message that Oracle wishes to send to the rest of the companies involved at OASIS.
I'd like to hear from the folks at Oracle as to how we can move forward, either with or without them.
Eric.
On 6/9/13 12:43 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
All,
I am surprised at the 'No' vote on the Web Service Binding Committee Specification ballot as no objections were raised when we discussed the ballot during the last TC call. Doing so would have allowed members to address concerns directly.
Unfortunately, the reasons provided for the 'No' votes cast by Oracle are extremely subjective and offer no constructive way forward. Explaining Oracle's position, Anish said the 'No' votes were a corporate decision predicated on the opinion
that "uptake of SCA by the industry has fallen well short of expectations" and not due to technical concerns. A single organization has blocked the advancement of a committee draft specification
because in their view it is no longer relevant to the "industry".
Based on the ballot outcome, it appears the other TC voting members - who represent a wide industry cross-section - disagree with that assessment. I would like to present
the following facts which highlight how SCA is still a relevant technology:
1. There are no other standards which address what SCA does, composite services in a Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA).
2. Major vendors holding significant market share have invested in SCA-based products and runtimes including IBM, TIBCO, RedHat and Siemens.
3. There are at least five *active* independent open source SCA implementations. There are not many other middleware standards with five open source implementations, including Java EE:
4. The SCA standards are supported and used by a wide variety of industry participants including vendors, corporations, open source organizations, and individuals.
Relegating SCA - which has received positive technical reviews in the industry - to permanent CSD status would be a disservice to the early adopters of SCA who looked to OASIS for standards leadership. Furthermore, leaving the SCA specifications
in non-Final form will create significant legal issues for existing SCA implementations. The OASIS IPR policy (https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/ipr) implies that
if the SCA specifications are not made Final, a TC Party does not have a Contribution Obligation. This leaves those responsible for SCA implementations open to patent claims from other TC Parties.
Impeding the specifications based solely on the belief that they are not relevant to the industry rather than on technical grounds strikes me as arbitrary and insufficient.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Simon Holdsworth <simon_holdsworth@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
Folks,
As attached, the Committee Specification ballot has closed. The results were 7 in favour, 3 against. Due to the super majority rules, the ballot has failed given more than 25% voted against it.
I'd like to invite the voters against to respond with any reasons for their choice, to help the TC understand how we could proceed with the move to Committee Specification status that the majority of the voting
members desire, given that no issues have been raised with the specification document itself.
Thanks, Simon
From: <tc_admin@oasis-open.org>
To: Simon Holdsworth/UK/IBM@IBMGB,
Date: 01/06/2013 01:07
Subject: [sca-bindings] Groups - Ballot closed: "Approve SCA Web Service Binding Specification v1.1
as a Committee Specification"
Sent by: workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org
"Approve SCA Web Service Binding Specification v1.1 as a Committee Specification" has closed.
|
Ballot Title:
Approve SCA Web Service Binding Specification v1.1 as a Committee Specification
Question
Do members of the SCA Bindings TC approve SCA Web Service Binding Specification V1.1 [1] with Non-Material Changes [2] and Designated Cross-Reference Changes [3] as a Committee Specification?
Description
This ballot requires a Special Majority Vote [4]. The TC roster currently lists 10 voting members. In order to pass, at least 7 members have to vote Yes and no more than 2 members may vote No.
[1] URI for the specification
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/49161/sca-wsbinding-1.1-spec-csprd03-rev1.doc
[2] The Working Draft for this Committee Specification contains changes made since its last public review. The changes made are documented in
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/49163/sca-wsbinding-1.1-spec-csprd03-rev1-diff.doc.
The TC judges these changes to be Non-Material Changes in accordance with the definition in the OASIS TC Process (http://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#dNonmaterialChange).
[3] This Specification Approval Motion includes the following Designated Cross-Reference Changes requested in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.19 of the TC Process (http://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#crossRefs):
- Current reference to be updated: line 31: [SCA-Assembly] OASIS Committee Specification Draft 07, Service Component Architecture Assembly Model Specification Version 1.1, January 2011
http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-assembly-1.1-spec-csd07.pdf
Expected approval status and date: Committee Specification, May 2013
- Current reference to be updated: line 35: [SCA-Policy] OASIS Committee Draft 04, SCA Policy Framework Specification Version 1.1, September 2010
http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-policy/sca-policy-1.1-spec-cd04.pdf
Expected approval status and date: Committee Specification, May 2013
- Current reference to be updated: line 38: [SCA-JCAA] OASIS Committee Specification Draft 05, Service Component Architecture SCA-J Common Annotations and APIs Specification Version 1.1, November 2010
http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-j/sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-csd05.pdf
Expected approval status and date: Committee Specification, May 2013
- Current reference to be updated: line 91: [WS-Testcases] OASIS Committee Draft 01, "TestCases for the SCA Web Service Binding Specification Version 1.1", July 2010,
http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-bindings/sca-wsbinding-1.1-testcases-cd01.pdf
Expected approval status and date: Replace with Latest version link.
The TC acknowledges that approval and publication of the specification may be delayed by the Designated Cross-Reference Changes."
[4] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2010-07-28.php#dSpecialMajority
Voting Results
10 of 10 eligible voters cast their vote before the deadline. - Yes received 7 Votes - No received 3 Votes - Abstain received 0 Votes The ballot received 0 comments.
View Results
Group: OASIS Service Component Architecture / Bindings (SCA-Bindings) TC
Date Opened: Friday, 24 May 2013 @ 12:00 am UTC
Date Closed: Friday, 31 May 2013 @ 11:59 pm UTC
Referenced Items
|
|
02418: Approve SCA Web Service Binding Specification v1.1 as a Committee Specification (16K)
|
2013-05-31
|
Download
| View Details
|
|
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
This message and any attachments are solely for the use of intended recipients. The information contained herein may include trade secrets, protected health or personal information, privileged or otherwise confidential information.
Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this email in error, and that any review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your system. Thank you for your cooperation
|