RE: [soa-rm] TC Process

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

I don't mind having a discussion and vote, but I would like to float 
another suggestion.

How about specifying the service component of the overall 
architecture as SOA Service RM?

It is, IMO, more precise,  as abstract as any could want, and it side 
steps the problem. I'm also of the opinion that we need a Service 
Consumer RM more than an RA because any RA is inevitably going to be 
seen as asserting itself as the ONLY RA possible, even if it is 
explicitly stated that it is not.

I've been around the reference implementation/sample implementation 
bush enough times already to have seen this, and we know that there 
are vendors and developers out there that will grab anything they see 
as a life preserver when they need something like a standard or an RM 
in this area.

Over in Emergency Management, we're having exactly that problem with 
some vendors and developers in relation to CAP, while they are 
waiting to be given the go ahead on the DRM and some associated 
specs. There's no need to go into details, but they are using CAP in 
ways for which it was never intended simply because they don't have 
the follow-on specs that they, and we, didn't even know we needed, as 
well as the ones we are working on that we discovered we needed 
sooner than the others. That's just the way these things can go, 
sometimes.

We have the exact same situation here, with groups expressing a 
desire/need to use even early strawman drafts before the metaphorical 
ink is dry.

But, if a vote is what we have to do, a vote 'twill be.

Ciao,
Rex

At 12:33 AM +0200 6/9/05, Peter F Brown wrote:
>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309