Y
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
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. >>> >>> >>> >>>
|