[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] governance musings over the weekend
Ken, et al... I still question the links between goals and governance. Certainly, I do not buy that governance is there to satisfy the goals of the participants. If that were true, no-one would go to gaol. A simple governance scenario: someone's day in court. Two participants want to 'win' their case; and perhaps they both feel entitled. One party is likely to lose, their goals will not be met. So, in what sense, are the participant's goals being satisfied by the process? I would argue that there are (at least) two levels of goals involved: there are the goals of each participant in arguing and winning their case (and getting the appropriate sanction applied to their opponent). There is another goal of wanting to live in an ordered society; which both parties also subscribe to (otherwise there would be a battle in the streets instead of in the courtroom). From the perspective of the judge, however, there is only the latter goal. In fact, this goal is so important (to the judge) that it will be satisfied *irrespective* of the wishes of the plaintiff and defendant -- which is why the defendant sometimes shows up in chains. I think that the minimum I would do to modify the diagram is to remove the link between participants and their goals. They do, of course, have goals; but IMO, those goals have nothing to do with governance. Second, I believe that the rules/policies etc. promulgated by management bodies have characteristics (or perhaps should have?). There are definite limits on the kinds of policies that can be enforced when we are in the Internet case of SOA. I believe that this means that the subject matter of policies is constrained by the organization being governed. Personally, I think that this subject matter is primarily the authority relationships amongst the participants within the organization (who can do what to whom). Enough for now Frank On Sep 10, 2007, at 9:22 AM, Don Flinn wrote: > Ken > > Relative to Michael's first question: While crossing ownership > domains is of concern in all governance models, I believe that it > comes more to the fore in SOA. > > Second item - Before Friday, I hadn't contemplated your example of > governance for entities with evil goals. However, after a some > thought, I agree that governance is about satisfying the goals of > the participants, whether the goals are good or bad for society. > (How good is defined is a philosophical question left for Plato and > others to struggled with.) However, since the Commons is one of > the participants (an interested party) the example of governance > related to an evil-doer entity brings up a question. Is governance > just in the eye of the beholder (e.g. the corporation) or does it > have to satisfy the complete social context? Or stated another way, > is a local governance incomplete without consideration of the goals > of all the participants in its social context? > > Don > > Ken Laskey wrote: >> see inline >> >> On Sep 10, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Poulin, Michael wrote: >> >>> Here a couple of other questions coming from the looking at the >>> diagram: >>> 1) what I special in this governance model for the service >>> orientation or why is it good especially for SOA? >> >> There is an attempt to show a level of independence between the >> Participants and the Decision Makers. In general, I think this >> exist in all governance scenarios but is ignored because >> governance bodies would prefer to be all-powerful over their >> perceived domain. >> >>> 2) what "Policies, Rules, and Regulations" are meant here - any >>> ones, run-time and/or development ones? >> >> In general, any ones. Is there a reason at the model level to >> separate build time from runtime? There may be benefits for >> managing the instances but I don't see differences at the model >> level. >> >>> 3) should the governance model in SOA RA promote the best >>> practices in SOA governance (if YES, what are they and how are >>> they reflected in here)? >> >> It does to a certain extent just on the basis of what is included >> and how it weaves together. The model should support practices >> that are more locally specific and support local management. >> >>> I know, asking questions is much easier than answering them, >>> nevertheless... >> >> If you don't ask, someone else will :-) >> >>> - Michael >>> /_ _/ >>> >>> Important: Fidelity Investments International (Reg. No.1448245), >>> Fidelity Investment Services Limited (Reg. No. 2016555), Fidelity >>> Pensions Management (Reg. No. 2015142) and Financial >>> Administration Services Limited (Reg. No. 1629709, a Fidelity >>> Group company) are all registered in England and Wales, are >>> authorised and regulated in the UK by the Financial Services >>> Authority and have their registered offices at Oakhill House, 130 >>> Tonbridge Road, Hildenborough, Tonbridge, Kent TN11 9DZ. Tel >>> 01732 361144. Fidelity only gives information on products and >>> does not give investment advice to private clients based on >>> individual circumstances. Any comments or statements made are not >>> necessarily those of Fidelity. The information transmitted is >>> intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed >>> and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you >>> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the >>> material from any computer. All e-mails sent from or to Fidelity >>> may be subject to our monitoring procedures. Direct link to >>> Fidelity’s website - http://www.fidelity-international.com/world/ >>> index.html >>> >>> >> Ken >> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ---- >>> *From:* Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] >>> *Sent:* 10 September 2007 14:49 >>> *To:* soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org >>> <mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org> >>> *Subject:* [soa-rm-ra] governance musings over the weekend >>> >>> Another tweak to the governance model, this time adding a class >>> for Metrics Collection and new relationships. >>> >>> <governance 20070910.png> >>> >>> Given a model of Governance, the next question on my mind is how >>> does it affect architecture. Some thoughts along those lines: >>> >>> Architecture implications >>> - need mechanisms to create and catalog Policies, Rules, and >>> Regulation >>> - need reliable access to specifics of current Governance >>> Framework and Governance Processes >>> - need mechanisms to collect metrics >>> - need mechanisms for Participants to access metrics >>> - need enforcement mechanisms for Management Body >>> >>> Assumptions >>> - You cannot govern what you cannot measure >>> - You cannot govern what does not agree to be governed >>> - expectations on what can and will be governed must match the >>> reality of what is possible and what is the collective will to >>> see done >>> >>> - need to manage (including configuration management and CRUD >>> processes)Governance Framework and Governance >>> Processes,Policies, >>> Rules, and Regulations but not Goals >>> >>> - I don't care where the Goals originated beyond saying they >>> come >>> from Participants >>> - I don't care if they are "good" Goals or "bad" Goals >>> because it >>> is up to Governance to come up with the set that serves those >>> who >>> want to remain Participants, and the SOA machinery should be >>> agnostic to the quality of the Goals or the make-up of the >>> Participants >>> - There may be many parallel or interacting Governance >>> environment with which a given Participant must interact. >>> >>> >>> Ken >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ---------------------- >>> Ken Laskey >>> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 >>> 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 >>> McLean VA 22102-7508 >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --------------------- >> >> Ken Laskey >> >> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 >> >> 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 >> >> McLean VA 22102-7508 >> >> > > -- > Don Flinn > President > Mansurus LLC > e-mail: flinn@alum.mit.edu > Tel: 781-856-7230 > http://mansurus.com >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]