Re: [soa-rm] Proposed Role Descriptions for SOA-RM Editors

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Hi Everyone,

I refrained from saying anything yesterday while I caught up on 
background materials, and notified the chair that I had not received 
the notification about yesterday's first meeting, but this happens to 
be an issue with which I have a lot of experience on all sides of the 
roles under discussion.

Someone MUST take responsibility for the overall document(s). There 
is simply no way that I know of to get work done reliably and with 
clear accountability otherwise. Also, from experience, after this 
initial rush of interest dies down and the work starts becoming more 
humdrum and mundane, and everyone realistically assesses how much 
time such a task actually involves, the generosity of spirit we see 
now will inevitably diminish.

Matt, as egalitarian as your ideals appear to be, I think the implied 
lack of structure as applied to a systematic approach to building a 
document or documents will simply be unworkable.

Also, just as a slight adjustment to the thinking I see here, I think 
it would be best to consider the task first and worry about the 
credit later. I, for one, applaud all the volunteers, especially 
because I simply could not take on such a role with my own current 
commitments, so, however, the task of editor is eventually resolved, 
I think it bodes well for this effort that there are so many 
volunteers at this stage. Let's hope we field a stable set of editors 
and adopt a workable framework for moving the work and the 
document(s) forward.

One suggestion as to process: please consider developing a set of 
real world business and institutional scenarios first, then develop a 
set of specific exemplar use-cases, for which I, personally, would 
prefer formal UML models, then, based on these models, derive 
specific, testable requirements in a formal Requirements Document(s) 
against which the specification(s) can be reliably tested to ensure 
that the requirements are met.

I think Ken's list of questions is a good place to start to ensure we 
don't leave anything unconsidered, such as the needs of Academic 
Institutions or NGOs. Also, I understand that the underlying 
assumptions about a "Reference Model" per se, mitigate against a 
specific code-able specification or specifications, but, I think, if 
you look at similar Reference Models, such as those contained in the 
Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework, you will find that scoping 
such efforts in terms of real world examples may help us avoid some 
pitfalls. Anything we can include by reference strikes me as a good 
idea.

I just noticed a new message that clarifies positions about UML, so I 
better post this before it becomes even more obsolete.

;-)
Rex



At 8:48 AM -0500 3/23/05, Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
>Thomas,
>
>I am personally not in favor of having a chief editor, as I feel it 
>bestows an unfair title upon one individual of many who are working 
>on the document.  The chief editor would be seen from the outside as 
>being somehow more authoritative than other editors.
>
>In fact, I am not in favor of having multiple "editors".  I am, 
>however, all for having multiple "authors".
>
>-Matt
>
>On 22-Mar-05, at 11:08 PM, Thomas Erl wrote:
>
>>It's encouraging that we have six or seven individuals willing to
>>participate as editors. Being one of them, I'm looking forward to working
>>with you all. However, I am concerned that without a system in place for
>>coordinating individual efforts, we may waste time and risk confusion while
>>trying to keep everything in alignment.
>>
>>Our goal should always be for our collective work to facilitate the TC
>>membership and the evolution of the reference model. I therefore agree that
>>we should designate a chief editor to assume ultimate responsibility for the
>>on-going quality of the reference model document and to oversee the overall
>>collaborative process. I also believe that we should clearly define the
>>relationships and boundaries between those that assume the role of "Editor"
>>and the designated "Chief Editor".
>>
>>I've had some experience in this area, so to get things started, I've
>>written up proposed role descriptions. Hopefully they will be helpful in
>>getting us organized. Your feedback is welcome.
>>
>>Editors
>>- Are each assigned the responsibility of maintaining a distinct and
>>meaningful portion of the reference model.
>>- Must be diligent in keeping their respective content areas current and
>>representative of contributions accepted by the TC as a whole.
>>- Maintain lists of outstanding issues specific to their content areas.
>>- Should proof and copyedit their own work as much as possible so as to
>>minimize the workload of the Chief Editor.
>>
>>Chief Editor
>>- Ensures that the reference model document is maintained in compliance with
>>existing OASIS documentation standards and any further conventions agreed
>>upon by the TC.
>>- Ensures that the predefined scope of the reference model is not exceeded.
>>(Candidate items raised by the TC beyond the scope of the reference model
>>should be maintained on a separate list until it is decided by the TC that
>>these items fall within or outside the scope.)
>>- Ensures that submissions from individual Editors are consistent in writing
>>style, tone, terminology, and structure. (Chief Editors can either revise
>>submissions or mark them up and then request that Editors perform the
>>revisions. For the sake of expediency, I recommend the former approach as
>>long as revisions are returned to individual Editors in a timely manner.)
>>- Maintains a list of outstanding issues that apply to the document as a
>>whole or have not yet been classified, and delegates issues to Editors when
>>appropriate.
>>- Maintains a parent-level outline of the reference model document.
>>- Is responsible for version control of the reference model document and for
>>publishing revisions to the OASIS site.
>>
>>Ideally, the Chief Editor would also be the one responsible for reading
>>through position papers and other documents submitted by members to ensure
>>that:
>>- redundant content is filtered
>>- content outside of the reference model scope is separated
>>- relevant content is brought forward for consideration by the TC
>>
>>Because we have a sufficient amount of volunteers, I would suggest that we
>>consider balancing the workload by limiting the duties of the Chief Editor
>>to quality control and facilitation. This means that only individual Editors
>>author and edit the sub-documents that comprise the reference model
>>document. The Chief Editor is not actually assigned a separate part of the
>>document, but instead governs the process of unifying sub-documents into the
>>master reference model document.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Thomas Erl
>>
>>P.S.
>>Also of interest, from the OASIS TC Guidelines:
>>"The TC Editor is the person who maintains the specification document(s) for
>>the TC. The editor writes drafts, updates the drafts with input from the TC
>>members, and makes the drafts available to TC members and to the public by
>>posting them on the TC mail list and/or giving them to the webmaster to post
>>on the web page. The editor should keep an ongoing list of open issues,
>>bugs, comments, etc. and their resolution."


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309