OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm-ra message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Diagramming trust - another take


This is an interesting bit to explore to see if we can make it clear.

In section 5, we say that governance expresses policies, satisfying a  
subset of the common goals of its participants.  Then, the mechanisms  
of governance and management promote and monitor the details put in  
place so that we can eventually assess whether the policies have been  
made operational.  So policies can be seen as things you put in place  
because you believe (sometimes mistakenly) these will lead to your  
goals.  (Note: there has been no dispute of this in the governance  
harmonization discussion with The Open Group.)

My goal is to raise responsible children and I express policies to  
them, such as not to drink too much.  There are tangible things I can  
do to regulate that within my home (seen as an ownership boundary, but  
as valid without legal ownership if I'm renting or squatting with no  
legal basis for occupancy).  When they go out (cross the ownership  
boundary), they are aware of my goals and policies, but these are not  
necessarily the goals and policies when they cross other ownership  
boundaries, e.g. a party at someone's house.

A clear set of goals sets context for a hopefully consistent set of  
policies and equally consistent rules and regulations that can be  
enforced, but they can only be enforced within the ownership boundary.

Part of the problem in the model and the description is I speak about  
"within an ownership boundary" and try to avoid introducing still  
another term for that "within".  It remains to be seen whether that  
can be successfully negotiated.

Ken

On Apr 6, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Ellinger, Robert S (IS) wrote:

> Expectations of behavior are not goals or mission statements, they are
> policies...too often mission statements and policies are mixed up.  "I
> don't care...etc." is a policy statement based on ownership.  You
> wouldn't what you do as an adult with other adults, in terms of  
> drinking
> in a house you own is a matter of government--at least until it spills
> out into the street; yet, the US Constitution was amended to do just
> that.  That was a policy based on a mission similar to "Just as no to
> drugs" and more unenforceable.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:43 PM
> To: Rex Brooks
> Cc: Ellinger, Robert S (IS); James Odell; David E. Ellis; Francis
> McCabe; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Diagramming trust - another take
>
> OK, guys, think out of the box/house.
>
> The ownership of the house provides one aspect of an ownership  
> boundary,
> but we're being overly restrictive if we think of the goal as only  
> being
> the deed or the mortgage.
>
> I bought my house with the idea that I was creating an environment to
> raise my children.  The ownership boundary was more than just the  
> walls
> of the house or the property boundary registered with the county.   
> There
> are certain modes of behavior (constraints) expected within that
> ownership boundary ("I don't care what you can do at John's house, you
> don't do it here") and the people within that boundary understand the
> expectations (goals) that set the context.
>
> I am not arguing for the exact models I provided but I do strongly
> encourage you to get beyond just the ownership of a thing.
>
> Ken
>
> On Apr 6, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Rex Brooks wrote:
>
>> Yes, ownership is definitely a state. The point was that stated goals
>> are not all that literally reliable. I think reputation and the
>> internal assessment that constitutes trust must use goals as usable
>> intermediary formulations against which the assessment or perception
>> takes place. We take stated goals as a form of code, such as you
>> related, Bob. Might be wise to imply that or else say it explicitly.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rex
>>
>> At 8:46 AM -0500 4/6/09, Ellinger, Robert S (IS) wrote:
>>> Again, isn't ownership a state, not an action.  When I own a house I
>>> can decide who is allowed in and who isn't.  The boundary, in our
>>> culture starts either at the door for a condo or the property line
>>> for a house.
>>> But I can demolish the house and plant corn or flowers...what  
>>> happens
>
>>> to the house I decide (governance...every man's house is his
>>> castle????).
>>> Likewise, with services, if I own it, I can decide (govern) who uses
>>> it and for what purpose.  I can stop offering the service, I can
>>> offer it free, or conditionally--my decision.  However, once I rent
>>> our my house or allow organizations to use my service, I now have
>>> obligations that are implies or explicitly stated in the "contract."
>
>>> And the T&Cs of that contract had better match my policies, or I am
>>> SOL.
>>>
>>> PS--My experience going through 5 or 6 mergers is that there is no
>>> such thing...all of them have been acquisitions and as soon as the
>>> acquisition has taken place, the baby is thrown out with the bath
>>> water, keeping only those few parts for which the acquisition was
>>> made...this is the only way large companies, otherwise on the going
>>> out of business curve avoid going out of business.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:24 AM
>>> To: Rex Brooks; Ellinger, Robert S (IS); Ken Laskey; James Odell
>>> Cc: David E. Ellis; Francis McCabe; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
>>> Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Diagramming trust - another take
>>>
>>> Of course the thing owned has boundaries that the owner in concert
>>> with social facts establishes. I don't think it much matters what  
>>> the
>
>>> goal is or is not. CA bought Platinum Technologies. Said that they
>>> wanted to incorporate it in their offerings and did not carry  
>>> through
>
>>> on that.
>>> (What a surprise!).
>>>
>>> H-P bought Compaq and the same thing happened. The point is that
>>> stated goals are not necessarily true.
>>>
>>> RWE: The competitor was effectively eliminated. Wonder what'll  
>>> happen
>
>>> if IBM is allowed to buy Sun? Whatever happens will likely be in  
>>> what
>
>>> IBM collectively and managerially decides is in its interest, not  
>>> the
>
>>> public's or the economy's interests, but we will be affected,
>>> regardless.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Rex
>>>
>>> At 6:14 AM -0700 4/6/09, Rex Brooks wrote:
>>>> Its not the boundary of the house, Bob,
>>>>
>>>> Its the boundary of the owner. You still own the house even if you
>>>> are on vacation on the other side of the world, and if you haven't
>>>> invested
>>>
>>>> in adequate security, the boundary stays with you while a group of
>>>> burglars slips in ... just kidding! ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Rex
>>>>
>>>> At 7:39 AM -0500 4/6/09, Ellinger, Robert S (IS) wrote:
>>>>> Ken:
>>>>>
>>>>> I opened the first diagram and was immediately confused.  When I
>>>>> "own"
>>>
>>>>> a house I have neither goals or constraints (other than paying the
>>>>> taxes on the place) so how does the diagram define the boundary of
>>>>> my
>>> house?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:06 AM
>>>>> To: James Odell
>>>>> Cc: David E. Ellis; Francis McCabe; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>>> Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Diagramming trust - another take
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> After another long talk with Dave Ellis, I am again inspired to  
>>>>> try
>
>>>>> to
>>>
>>>>> express some ideas, and this time I come with definitions and
>>> diagrams.
>>>>>
>>>>> Goal: a desired set of real world effects
>>>>>
>>>>> Goal may be that the real world effects are realized, avoided, or
>>>>> some
>>>
>>>>> combination.
>>>>>
>>>>> Constraint: a specified set of real world effects that an actor is
>>>>>   (1) limited from pursuing or being responsible for indirectly
>>>>> causing, or
>>>>>   (2) responsible for pursuing
>>>>>
>>>>> Ownership Boundary: the extent of an identifiable set of actors
>>>>> sharing a common set of goals and constraints, and other common
>>>>> entities through which the goals and constraints can be expressed.
>>>>>
>>>>> A given actor may reside within one or more ownership boundaries.
>>>>> There may be agreed upon protocols for interactions that cross
>>>>> ownership boundaries or an actor crossing an ownership boundary  
>>>>> may
>
>>>>> independently need to resolve any mismatches.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reputation: a property of a given actor assigned by other actors
>>>>> based
>>>
>>>>> on the accumulated experience experience of the other actors on  
>>>>> the
>
>>>>> extent to which real world effects resulting from interaction with
>>>>> the
>>>
>>>>> given actor are assessed as desirable, neutral, or undesirable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other definitions are needed but I was concentrating on the
>>>>> diagrams that follow.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> -- 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Rex Brooks
>>>> President, CEO
>>>> Starbourne Communications Design
>>>> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
>>>> Berkeley, CA 94702
>>>> Tel: 510-898-0670
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> - 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.p
>>>> hp
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rex Brooks
>>> President, CEO
>>> Starbourne Communications Design
>>> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
>>> Berkeley, CA 94702
>>> Tel: 510-898-0670
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rex Brooks
>> President, CEO
>> Starbourne Communications Design
>> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
>> Berkeley, CA 94702
>> Tel: 510-898-0670
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> 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
>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305      phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                         fax:       703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508







[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]