[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA, etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together
Joseph:
I have been aware of only a few who are wanting
to re-examine our
charter. Nevertheless, we are democratic. We
will put this up for a
vote. If more than one third of the members feel
this is worth taking
time on, we will discuss it. The one third
represents the fact that
some may not actually vote. If less than one
third select to discuss
it, then can we please accept the charter?
We
will set it up tomorrow and leave it open for one week. That
leaves
plenty of time if it passes to distribute the questions then compile
the
results.
The rationale is that while a few may still wish to
examine it, my
perception is that the vast majority do accept the charter and
want to
work on a reference model first, then RA.
Does that work for
you?
Duane
Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>So you don't see
any problems regarding any of the below? You're not
>aware of anyone
expressing concern on our list regarding what it is we
>are defining, the
scope of it? Hmmmm.....maybe I've been operating in a
>different
TC.;)
>
>Oh - I am also not referring to what is in our charter. "It
is in our
>charter" is not, IMO, an effective way to address the concerns
that
>people have been repeatedly expressing). One can put things in
a
>charter, then start work, and be unclear as to whether or not they
have
>strayed from the charter.
>
>This is a simple request
from a TC member to clarify what they are
>perceiving is a major
disconnect within the TC on several issues, and it
>seems that the answer
from the Chair on that is "I don't see any issue",
>when I believe it
should be "Let's address these
concerns".
>
>Thanks,
>Joe
>
>Joseph
Chiusano
>Booz Allen Hamilton
>Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original
Message-----
>>From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
>>Sent:
Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:03 PM
>>To: Chiusano Joseph
>>Cc:
soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
>>Subject: Re: [soa-rm]
Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA,
>>etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us
Closer Together
>>
>>Comments
inline:
>>
>>Chiusano Joseph
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Duane,
>>>
>>>I
would like to make a suggestion to help clear up the
current
>>>division in our TC on some basic issues, which I believe
is truly
>>>inhibiting our ability to move forward in a unified way
- and will
>>>continue to do so unless we address it at this
time.
>>>
>>>The most prominent division that I have
perceived over
the
>>>
>>>
>>course
of
>>
>>
>>>several weeks is:
"If we are defining a reference model, what is it
>>>for? Is it for
a single service? (call
this
>>>
>>>
>>"service-orientation")
or
>>
>>
>>>SOA?" IOW, "Is it
SO-RM, or
SOA-RM?"
>>>
>>>
>>I
think that there is no disagreement of what a RM is or what
>>we are
calling the TC. That has been specified in the
>>charter from day
1 in very clear language. We did have a
>>brief conversation
about the name but it was my observation
>>that only 1 or 2 were even
willing to change it. The rest of
>>the 91 members seem to be in
agreement. Likewise - who is
>>still confused as to the purpose
of a reference
model?
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>The
second most prominent division that I have perceived over
the
>>>course of several weeks is: "Where is the line drawn between
RM and
>>>RA?". Last week I began a thread[1] on this question, and
I
>>>
>>>
>>thank
all
>>
>>
>>>who contributed
(Matt, Duane, Ken, Rex, Francis, any
others
>>>
>>>
>>I
missed).
>>
>>
>>>However, I
think we really need to drill down into
this
>>>
>>>
>>question
more
>>
>>
>>>and have a crystal
clear answer before we go any
farther,
>>>
>>>
>>else
run the
>>
>>
>>>risk of
creating an RM that cannot easily "bridge to" an
RA.
>>>
>>>
>>This
is something that is less clear but I feel we are on
>>track with our
current activities. Matt's email clarified it
>>very well
IMO. We now have a collective responsibility to
>>ensure our RM
is usable, unique etc. We must be vigilant in
>>that
regard.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>So,
I would like to propose a solution:
>>>
>>>I would like
to propose that we take an informal poll (not a formal
>>>vote)
across the TC as a "pulse check" that will enable us to
come
>>>closer together on these vital issues. The poll would
be
>>>
>>>
>>comprised
of
>>
>>
>>>the following
questions (folks would simply put an "*"
to
>>>
>>>
>>the
left of
>>
>>
>>>the letter of
their
response):
>>>
>>><Questions>
>>>(1)
Do you believe that the RM in our current draft
is:
>>>
>>>A. A service-orientation reference model B. A
SOA
reference
>>>
>>>
>>model
C.
>>
>>
>>>Other
>>>
>>>
>>Joseph
- I am sorry but this is in our charter. it is not up
>>for
negotiation. Everyone who joined this TC had the
>>opportunity to
read the charter. We allowed discussion on it
>>once or twice and
my recollection is that there is clear
>>consensus on both the name and
purpose of the TC.
>>
>>Reference Models are clearly scoped
and defined. This TC
>>should not impose to re-define what a
reference model is.
>>First - it will probably not fly with
established software
>>architects. Second - we already decided to
adopt and use the
>>industry standard definition (again - in the
charter).
>>
>>We have much more important work to
contemplate. I would
>>like to harness the collective experience
and energy of this
>>TC to get the core model nailed
down.
>>
>>As we progress, we will have the opportunity to
examine and
>>tune the RM to be
useful.
>>
>>Duane
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]