[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
Joseph: This is not an official vote. I will remind you that the TC has a due process to follow WRT voting. This was adopted to ensure adequate time and due process. I would assert that given the large number of messages from this TC, we should also aim to cut down on message volume wherever possible. "Duane Nickull suggested the TC use the web based voting system; under the rules of OASIS a ballot on this system would have to be open for 1 week. Jamie Clark clarified that not all ballots needed to use this system, but it represented an option. Ron Schuldt proposed use of web based voting; it was seconded by Joe Chiusano. No objections were made. The proposal has been accepted." This is from our approved minutes at: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/soa-rm/200503/msg00039.html Accordingly, I will set up a formal vote on this. Let's do it this way so we adhere to the wishes of the TC please. I'll have it done in a few minutes. Duane Chiusano Joseph wrote: > Totals from responses so far: > Y: 6 > N: 1 (with additional information provided) > Joe > Joseph Chiusano > Booz Allen Hamilton > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com <http://www.boozallen.com/> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com] > *Sent:* Friday, May 20, 2005 12:09 PM > *To:* 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 > > Sure - everything you need to know is in: > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/soa-rm/200505/msg00514.html > Joe > Joseph Chiusano > Booz Allen Hamilton > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com <http://www.boozallen.com/> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Behera, Prasanta [mailto:pbehera@visa.com] > *Sent:* Friday, May 20, 2005 11:46 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 > > 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 > <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]