[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
Joe or Matt: Would you consider entering a comment against the current draft to rename the spec? This would be a good way to bring focus onto this item. Duane Matthew MacKenzie wrote: > N, but I do think we need to consider the word ordering in our > specification's title more closely. > > -Matt > > On 20-May-05, at 9:26 AM, 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 >> <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, >> >> 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]