[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
Yes. Don On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 10:23 -0400, Metz Rebekah wrote: > Yes > > > > Rebekah Metz > > Associate > > Booz Allen Hamilton > > Voice: (703) 377-1471 > > Fax: (703) 902-3457 > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: Michael Stiefel [mailto:development@reliablesoftware.com] > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 9:43 AM > To: Chiusano Joseph; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [soa-rm] [Please indicate if you believe pulse check > would be valuable] RE: [soa-rm] Service-Orientation, SOA, RM vs. RA, > etc.: Suggestion To Bring Us Closer Together > > > > > Yes > > At 09:26 AM 5/20/2005, 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 > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > 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. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -- Don Flinn President, Flint Security LLC Tel: 781-856-7230 Fax: 781-631-7693 e-mail: flinn@alum.mit.edu http://flintsecurity.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]