RE: [soa-rm] TC Process

["Peter F Brown" <peter@justbrown.net>]

Well, as the mover, I should have checked the rules before proposing it!!

Can I ask you, therefore, to place this motion on the agenda for next
Wednesday? I may not be able to stay for the whole call as I'm travelling
(for a change!)

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] 
Sent: 08 June 2005 22:28
To: peter@justbrown.net
Cc: 'SOA-RM'
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] TC Process

Peter:

Many thanks. As I was preparing an email to follow up, I became aware of a
rule under section 2.13 of the OASIS TC policies and procedures that I had
overlooked before.  I apologize for this since I realize I have made a
mistake procedurally.  My bad.

The text states that:

"A motion to open an electronic ballot must be made in a TC meeting unless
the TC has adopted a standing rule to allow this motion to be made on the
TC's general email list. When such a rule has been adopted, motions made on
the mail list must also be seconded and discussed on that list."

I originally thought that merely making a motion to allow electronic voting
also included the right to make and second motions via the list, however
this text indicates that is not so.  Accordingly, we will need to place an
agenda item on the next conference call allowing these motions to be made on
the electronic list in the future.

I apologize again for this oversight.  I hope you will consider
re-submitting your motion during the next call.

Duane

Peter F Brown wrote:

>Duane:
>
>Picking up on your hint/proposal at the end of your mail below, I would 
>formally move that the TC votes on the "service customer" issue.
>
>My motion is:
>Given the debate in the TC regarding the correct scoping of the 
>proposed Reference Model, I move that the TC agree that the concept of 
>'service customer' shall not be considered an a normative concept 
>within scope of the RM. Further discussion of this concept shall be 
>pursued only on this basis and may be used indicatively in any 
>illustrative appendix to the RM or in subsequent work on reference 
>arhcitectures but shall not be included as a normative part of the
reference model.
>
>Rationale:
>I fear we are running ahead of ourselves and sometimes running in 
>circles. I see the importance and relevance of concepts such as consumer,
message, etc.
>to building actual SOA architectures, but - after following the 
>exchanges on the list in the last weeks on this and related issues - I 
>now feel that this concept is distracting or attention and risks taking
further bandwidth.
>
>Comments:
>- I think that if the TC can focus its attention on this motion for a 
>couple of days, we can nail down a key issue that will also help us all 
>clarify the scope of the RM.
>- I would also suggest (this is not a motion!) that at the next TC 
>confcall, an item for discussion could be whether it would be useful to 
>establish an RA sub-cttee already/soon that could serve to channel some 
>of these discussions without shutting them down.
>
>Peter
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
>Sent: 07 June 2005 20:06
>To: SOA-RM
>Subject: [soa-rm] TC Process
>
><snip/>
>
>Moving forward, I would like to suggest that if the subject of Service 
>Consumer is at debate, we deal with it in the following diplomatic manner.
>I also hope it will shed some light as per Rebekah's comment on trying 
>to understand the differences of opinion too.  That is very useful IMO.
>
>1. A motion from a voting member to vote on the topic
>
>2. Full discussion (can happen on the list and/or conf call).
>
>3. When either the discussion has ended or 2/3 of the TC votes that it 
>has gone on long enough, we have a vote.
>
>4. After the vote, it is res judicata
>
>Currently, we do not have a motion asking for a vote.  If someone wants 
>the SC to be in the RM rather than or alongside the RA, they need to 
>make that motion. Discussion to follow.
>
>Duane
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>