[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 bevaluable] RE: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA,etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together
Jospeh: This TC does these types of things by a Kavi vote. Please abide by the wishes of the majority. We voted within the TC to vote via the Kavi voting, for a minimum of one week. That still leaves time to get it on the agenda. Matt - can you please work with Joseph to set up a kavi vote? Thanks Duane Chiusano Joseph wrote: > 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 <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 <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 >> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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]