Re: [soa-rm-ra] stakeholders summary

[Francis McCabe <frankmccabe@mac.com>]

+1
And good for Reston!

I think that the judge had it wrong. Even if the trees had no legal  
standing, people do. And the loss of trees can result in a loss to  
people in the neighborhood. I suspect that that ruling would not  
survive an appeal.

BTW: I am not a lawyer, so the above is just an opinion...

I think that you need to expand the scope of stakeholders a little:

-- service hosts
-- service mediators (brokers, etc.)
-- service discovery agencies

Frank

On Aug 24, 2006, at 7:51 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:

> From the ftf, we had
> - direct participants
>   -- providers
>   -- consumers
> - regulatory authorities
> - non-participants (innocent bystanders/"victims")
>
> My initial question to the list was whether the direct participants  
> were *service* providers and *service* consumers or whether there  
> were other providers (and by extension, other consumers and  
> participants).
>
> From the discussion so far, I would say the ftf list covers the  
> territory and the direct participants are indeed always dealing  
> with services.  However, the non-participants can include anyone  
> (and possibly anything) else, and their identification is context  
> dependent.
>
> An anecdote that has some relevance:
> Last week a judge ruled against a neighborhood group who was trying  
> to block construction of the new Yankee Stadium.  The neighborhood  
> group said the loss of the nearby park and trees would have a  
> devastating effects on the community.  The judge ruled that the  
> trees had no legal standing.  My daughter's immediate response was,  
> "They do in Reston!"  Now I live in Reston, one of the original  
> planned communities, and here you have to make sure your basketball  
> backboards are the right color.  Notwithstanding those  
> philosophical battles, one of the differences in development in  
> Reston is they generally try to save the existing trees rather than  
> clear cutting and just plowing everything under.  The result is  
> actually quite nice.  In any case, context will often define the  
> most relevant (for modeling purposes) non-participatory stakeholders.
>
> Ken
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> --------------------
> Ken Laskey
> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934
> 7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-983-1379
> McLean VA 22102-7508
>