Thanks Matt.
TC members: If you believe that a "pulse check" to see where we
collectively stand on these fundamental issues would be valuable (i.e. is our
current RM depicting SOA or is it depicting service orientation, what is SOA,
etc.) please indicate this asap. Please note that this is not asking what is
your view, but would a quick pulse check to get the current overall TC view be
valuable to our process moving forward.
To make it easy: You can "reply all" to this e-mail with a simply "Yes"
(a pulse check would be valuable) or "No" (a pulse check would not be valuable).
Or even Y
or N, to save typing effort. ;)
Silence will indicate indifference.
Thanks!
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Joe,
This can play out in one of two ways:
1) Overwhelming interest by TC members on the email list makes it obvious
that discussion is required immediately. I've not seen that yet.
Could happen today. If I see that, I think I can put up an informal poll
because it would be obvious that many folks think we need a "pulse
check".
2) Your agenda request is noted by Duane when he gets this message, and
if (1) doesn't somehow resolve the issue, it can be resolved at the next
meeting. The issue probably shouldn't be about the poll, the issue in
this case should probably be the subject of the poll.
-Matt
On 20-May-05, at 9:05 AM, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
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. >>> >>> >>> >>>
|