Thanks Matt - whom do I see to get this idea on the next meeting agenda?
Or if it is easier, I would like to please make the request now that whoever
creates the next agenda includes this idea.
Clarification: Would the vote ask whether or not this "pulse check"
should be done? Or would the pulse check itself act as the vote? I am fine
either way - just want to follow our procedures. If we do the pulse check
then as a TC member, I accept, honor, and respect the results whatever they may
be. It's just the right now when I am asked about what this TC is developing,
all I can say is "we are not sure" because we do not have consensus on what SOA
is, what a reference model is, etc. At least with this mechanism I will be able
to say "our consensus is that SOA is X", and "our consensus is that a reference
model is Y", etc.
Not worried about heckling - after all, I used to do a comedy show every
Sat. night through the mid-to-late 80s with Jay Mohr. One of us used to get
heckled (although my "Newark, Newark" song parody used to get good responses -
sometimes;)
Joe (An Italian-American who watches C-SPAN instead of Friends after
work)
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Joe,
1. Get your idea on the next meeting agenda.
2. Attend said meeting.
3. Bring forward a motion, and ask for a eligible person to second
it.
4. It will be put to vote.
Parliamentary process is wonderful, but you have to expect lots of
heckling and disagreement.
-Matt (A Canadian who watches C-SPAN instead of Friends after work)
On 20-May-05, at 6:51 AM, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
<Quote>
This is the TC process at
work. Can we please give it a chance? </Quote>
Please clarify why you
believe that a TC member asking that we poll the TC informally to gain
clarification on issues that are fundamental to the TC's mission is outside
of the normal TC process.
Joe
The current draft is a work in progress and we are actively
editing it now. It will change to reflect TC consensus. What
else do you want? This is the TC process at work. Can we
please give it a chance?
None of us have stated that our current
draft is truly SOA, nor should we until we have TC
consensus.
Duane
Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>I would be
very willing to take on documenting it, but there is a >prerequisite
that is missing, which was part of my message in this >thread - and
that is coming to agreement within the TC as whether our >current RM
is truly SOA - which also has a prerequisite of coming to >aggrement
within the TC on what we believe SOA is (is more than 1 >service
required to have SOA, are shared services a fundamental >component,
etc.). Our current draft states that SOA is a type of EA, and >we have
already determined (I believe) that that is not the
case. > >Kind Regards, >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 11:08 PM >>Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >>Subject:
Re: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA, >>etc.:
Suggestion To Bring Us Closer
Together >> >>Joseph: >> >>I will concur
that the definition between RA and RM could
use >>documenting. Is that a task you may be willing to take
on? >> >>Duane >> >>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?" >>> >>>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. >>> >>> >>> >>>
|