[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
My understanding of what Joe is asking is to see if the TC thinks that the current scope of the RM is enough, or if the scope of the RM should be extended.
From: Michael Stiefel [mailto:development@reliablesoftware.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 9:11 AM
To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA, etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together
He is not asking for the charter to be changed.
Michael
At 06:44 AM 5/20/2005, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
<Quote>
Does that work for you?
</Quote>
Not at all. The issue is not about the charter (at least not primarily). I would simply like to see us address the questions that I proposed in the "pulse check" to get a sense of how the TC feels as a whole about these fundamental issues. A charter can say "we are to develop X" and "here is what X is", but if - having said that - when the work begins, it becomes clear that there are still places within the charter where there are room for interpretation, and the interpretation is not unified, I believe it is justified to have clarification.
Then if we see that the majority of the TC members are in the "I'm fine - please proceed" category, there is no issue. If there is, then we should go down the path of re-examining the charter. But that may not even be necessary.
Thanks,
Joe
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
Sent: Thu 5/19/2005 11:23 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 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]