Michael,
I think our perspectives are fairly consistent but I would prefer to not go into that level of detail. However, I would hope the RA would provide a launching point from which that detail is necessary and appropriate.
I do think there are aspects of SOA governance that I would like to keep separate from IT governance because I see too many examples of people who have failed on the IT side using the SOA side as their savior. When that doesn't work, they blame SOA.
Ken On Feb 22, 2009, at 7:55 AM, Mike Poulin wrote: Here are my 2p 1) forming governance, we efined policies and Procedures. The latter were the descriptions of of procedural activities such as architectural reviews, orders of sign-off, roles of participants in the reviews, review authorities (depending on the level of participants, e.g.). With regard to SOA, the policies may, for example, define the test instrumentation while procedures - transition between staging environment and related testing to be conducted. 2) I have attached two diagrams on SO governance where I try not to state that IT and SOA governance are siblings only but also the same relationship between SOA and Buisness governance. I explicitly extend SOA, more accurately - service orientation, on the Buisness side of the organisation and related governance. - Michael ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Laskey" To: "soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org RA" Subject: [soa-rm-ra] governance revised for policy and intent Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:23:59 -0500 Attached are two excerpts that I revised. Generic Governance: a chunk from section 5.1 that includes what I think I need for policy (and I believe is consistent with other sections), a slight extension of the Leadership definition (but consistent with the visual model already there), and an added figure showing SOA and IT governance as siblings. The last was a model I thought I had already included but realized I didn't when it was discussed (and agreed to in concept) during the TOG telecon. Social Structure & Governance: a previous discussion tossed around the idea of moving any mention of governance in the ecosystem (section 3) to the governance section (section 5.1), and Frank did in the latest draft but it doesn't quite fit. I suggest it stay in the ecosystem view and I suggest a context in which it fits. Note this is close to what I sent out in an email the other day but here I adopted (and referred to) the definition of Intent already in section 3. As noted, I am most interested in agreement on section 5 so I can use it for project work and to share in the TOG discussions. Comments welcome but if you just say it's OK, I won't take this as a setting of precedence :-) Ken << Generic Governance 20090221.doc >> << Social Structure & Governance.doc >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com! <SO Governance areas of influence-B&W.jpg><SOA Governance-B&W.jpg>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508
|