[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
Please note that there is a ballot in Kavi for this purpose. -Matt On 21-May-05, at 3:40 PM, john c hardin wrote: > Yes > > ~~~~~~~~~ > john c hardin > Chair, OASIS ebSOA Technical Committee > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ebsoa > 313.279.1377 new *VONAGE* number > mailto:john@crossconnections.ws > > "The new electronic interdependence recreates the world in the > image of a global village." > > Marshall McLuhan, "Gutenberg Galaxy", 1962 > > > Derek C FU wrote: > >> Yes >> ._________________________. >> Derek Fu - I/T Architect >> Software Group >> 11/F, PCCW Tower, Taikoo Place, 979 King's Road, Quarry Bay, Hong >> Kong >> mailto:FuDerek@hk1.ibm.com >> Office +852 2825-6616 Fax +852 2825-0022 Mobile +852 9199-2060 >> Inactive hide details for "Chiusano Joseph" >> <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>"Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com> >> *"Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>* >> 05/20/2005 09:26 PM >> >> To >> >> <soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org> >> cc >> >> 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_ >> <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]