[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
The scope of the TC, as defined in our charter cannot be increased without re-chartering the TC. This is a hard rule of OASIS. This is the reason why this TC exists instead of simply expanding the scope of the ebSOA TC. Duane Michael Stiefel wrote: > 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. > > 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]