|
This is just stylistics, but it's been bugging me.
Rather than the anthropomorphic "governance" at the start of the second paragraph under 5.1.1.1 Terminology, should we say, "To accomplish this, organizations require governance structure...to carry out their mandates." On Feb 16, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Danny Thornton wrote: Somebody has been busy. I would say we are at the
point where the RA doc has hit its puberty stage.
I gave the Governance section a once over and only
have few comments for now.
1) The following sentence is a chicken and egg
situation:
Rules and Regulations MUST be based on collected
Metrics or there will be no way for Management to
assess compliance.
Could be
Rules and Regulations MUST rely on collected Metrics
or there will be no way for Management to assess
compliance.
2) The following sentence could be dropped from the
RA.
A minimal degree of agreement often presages
participants who “slow-roll” if not actively reject
complying with Policies that express the specifics of
governance.
The paragraph leading up to this sentence was good but
then the train of thought rolled a few feet beyond the
stop sign for the RA.
3) I found the following sentence to be too strong of
a statement for the RA.
Those responsible for carrying out governance mandates
must have Leadership who makes it clear to
Participants that expressed Policies are seen as a
means to realizing established goals and that
compliance with governance mandates is not optional.
This statement does not take into consideration those
times when a person's judgement is required to
determine if noncompliance may have been of a
necessity or beneficial. The statement is a black and
white philosophy for governance, one that can often
lead to the infringement of the emotional quality of
the participants being governed as well as the
detriment of the governed body/organization as a
whole. My suggestion is to soften the statement by
changing:
mandates is not optional
to
mandates is required.
4) Section 5.1.4 - Architectural Imiplications of SOA
Governance - is a good check list on the architectural
pieces involved in SOA Governance.
Danny
--- Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org> wrote:
> After sifting through email threads, recommended
> articles, and
> numerous other discussions, comments and
> suggestions, the attached is
> a complete draft of the governance section.
>
> Items to note:
>
> 1. The previous UML model was getting a bit busy, so
> it was broken
> down into the four separate models shown. If
> reassembled into one,
> the result would be very close to what was last
> discussed during our
> telecons.
>
> 2. I suggested at one point that we have a lot of
> great content but
> I'm afraid we might lose the reader, so we should
> include something
> of a summary at the end of each major (TBD) section.
> The
> Architectural Implications section is an example of
> this applied to
> the governance discussion.
>
> I would usually say comments are welcome but I'm
> afraid to invite the
> barrage I expect to follow. However, I guess it
> comes with the
> territory.
>
> Ken
>
> 
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------
> Ken Laskey
> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
> 7515 Colshire Drive fax:
> 703-983-1379
> McLean VA 22102-7508
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
|