RE: Attempt to resolve these issues in framework

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Sending to the TC listserv to keep all discussions open and public.

Joe

Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 1:09 PM
> To: Chiusano Joseph
> Subject: Attempt to resolve these issues in framework
> 
> Joseph:
> 
> Let's figure out if we can bring some of these into our 
> existing frame of work.
> 
> <Questions>
> (1) Do you believe that the RM in our current draft is:
> A. A service-orientation reference model B. A SOA reference 
> model C. Other
> 
> DN - why do you not enter a comment proposing that the name 
> of the spec be changed to Service Orientation Reference 
> Model? This can be entered as a comment against the current 
> spec (line 1).
> (2) If the answer to #1 was A: Do you believe that the 
> current scope of the RM is what the scope should be for our 
> finished product? (i.e. no need to expand or contract) A. Yes B. No
> C: Not sure
> 
> DN - I am not sure how to express this as a comment exactly. 
> If you feel that the existing scope of the RM is not detailed 
> enough, I encourage you to enter a comment that states such. 
> I think this is an on going discussion given that we need to 
> at the end of the day be able to say not only what is SOA, 
> but also what is not SOA. Accordingly, we will need to be 
> vigilant that our RM is a product that is useful for it's 
> intended purpose and the sections of conformance and Appendix 
> B are done well enough to serve a purpose. It may be too 
> early to tell but right now I feel that the current draft is 
> not formed enough to be useful in that context. The way 
> forward is to not rush this, but look at where we can 
> specifically make comments to specific parts to ensure we are 
> going to end up with something that does the task.
> 
> This is not an easy task, nor one we can do with a simple vote. 
> Persistent comments to increase clarity are going to probably 
> win in the long term here.
> 
> (3) If the answer to #1 was C: How would you describe our RM?
> Answer here:_____________________________________________
> 
> DN - this one I am not sure how to deal with. Does this mean 
> our current RM draft? If it does, my gut feel is that it is 
> far too early to judge. 
> I would rather defer this conversation until we have version 
> 0.8. If this means what is an RM in general, I hope that you 
> are not wanting to redefine that. Please let me know if I 
> have misinterpreted.
> (4) If the answer to #2 was B: Please describe why you 
> believe our current RM is for SOA, but its scope is not correct.
> Answer here:_____________________________________________
> </Questions>
> 
> DN - I feel it is far too early to enter into this 
> conversation given that revision 07 already has substantial 
> comments logged against it including the core RM itself. 
> Accordingly, having this conversation at this time, is 
> probably not an effective use of time. I would encourage us 
> all to defer this until we feel we have something ready to 
> query at this level.
> 
> 
> My thoughts on sending out a poll at this point is that it is 
> too early and we are detracting from the core work. Two of 
> the items can be addressed within that core work framework, 
> one may be able to and the other I feel is probably too early 
> to address given the immaturity of our spec.
> 
> I am open to a phone call to discuss this further. If you 
> have other suggestions, please send them back and be assured 
> that I do not wish to censor you or anyone else, but also 
> have a responsibility to ensure that the TC's direction is 
> maintained and our work is focused. In the process, I will 
> probably piss of everybody but we will get our work done.
> 
> Duane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I've already figured out how we can interpret the 
> responses, based on combinations of responses for questions 
> #1 and #2 (note that "A/A" 
> means the response for both question #1 and #2 was A):
> <Responses>
> 
> A/A: "I'm fine - proceed as is."
> 
> A/B: "We need to expand the scope of the current RM, and I 
> have provided more details in question #4."
> 
> A/C: "I'm confused and need help."
> 
> B (N/A for question #2): "I'm fine - proceed as is."
> 
> C (N/A for question #2): "I think our current RM describes 
> neither nor service orientation nor SOA, and I have provided 
> more details in question #3."
> 
> </Responses>
> What are your thoughts on disseminating this as a pulse check?
> 
>