I
would like the mail to list the issues (“these” is not clear). We had tons of
email today and it is hard to catch up. It will be nice if you can resend the
mail specifying the issues
Thanks,
/Prasanta
-----Original
Message-----
From: Chiusano
Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 6:26
AM
To:
soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [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
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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>