[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] [Please indicate if you believe pulse check would be valuable] RE: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RMvs. RA, etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together
Y
--------------------------------------------------------------------
John L Jackson
--------------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors
Director of Enterprise Software Technology
313-667-4261
john.l.jackson@gm.com
"Chiusano Joseph"
<chiusano_joseph@ To: <soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org>
bah.com> cc:
Subject: [soa-rm] [Please indicate if you believe pulse check would be valuable] RE:
05/20/2005 09:26 [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA, etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer
AM Together
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
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 9:15 AM
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
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
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 7:36 AM
To: Chiusano Joseph
Cc: Duane Nickull; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA, etc.:
Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together
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
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
Sent: Thu 5/19/2005 11:27 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
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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]