[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Result of Voting on SOA-RM v1.0 as OASIS Standard
Agree - perhaps we can also try and encourage the commenter to join the TC (if we have not already), so that they can expand on their concerns during the 1.1 phase. Joe Joseph Chiusano Associate Booz Allen Hamilton 700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 O: 202-508-6514 C: 202-251-0731 Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com -----Original Message----- From: Bashioum, Christopher D [mailto:cbashioum@mitre.org] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 10:11 AM To: Matt MacKenzie; Jones, Steve G; Chiusano Joseph; Tom Merkle; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Result of Voting on SOA-RM v1.0 as OASIS Standard I agree with Matt and Steve. Go to standard, and address any concerns in version 1.1 if it is deemed necessary. -----Original Message----- From: Matt MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 9:14 AM To: Jones, Steve G; Chiusano Joseph; Tom Merkle; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Result of Voting on SOA-RM v1.0 as OASIS Standard The key here is "opinion". It is the Avaya voter's "opinion" that the RM allows architectures that are not SOA classify themselves as SOA. To me, that implies that the voter has some pre-ordained ideas of what SOA is, and that we would not make him/her happy unless our reference model catered to the opinion held by that individual. My vote: move to standard. 1/89 is not enough to delay us, because at the end of the day we really are not going to make revisions to our specification for one person's opinion. We can spend a bunch of time in the interest of "being fair", but the outcome will be the same. -matt -----Original Message----- From: Jones, Steve G [mailto:steve.g.jones@capgemini.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 9:01 AM To: Chiusano Joseph; Tom Merkle; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Result of Voting on SOA-RM v1.0 as OASIS Standard To play devils advocate here (I'm on a retainer) we've received 89 yes votes, and for the last several months people have had ample opportunity. If Avaya flesh out areas of concern this will either mean we ignore them (otherwise we have to go back through the cycle) or we make the changes which means it counts as an entirely new submission. I'd propose that we get the feedback and consider it within the scope of a 1.1 proposal. A vague concern that it allows things to be defined as SOA that aren't in the opinion of the voter SOA doesn't out weight the over 25% of OASIS voters (10% above target) who thought that it did. Lets shift to standard and then look at revisions within the scope of a 1.1 or a 2.0. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com] Sent: 02 October 2006 13:38 To: Tom Merkle; Jones, Steve G; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Result of Voting on SOA-RM v1.0 as OASIS Standard I second Tom's suggestion - I think it is very fair to both sides. Joe Joseph Chiusano Associate Booz Allen Hamilton 700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 O: 202-508-6514 C: 202-251-0731 Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com -----Original Message----- From: Tom Merkle [mailto:TMerkle@capwin.org] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:20 AM To: Jones, Steve G; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Result of Voting on SOA-RM v1.0 as OASIS Standard In all fairness, I propose we allow the "no" voter one week to provide a detailed analysis of what they consider is wrong or missing with the SOA-RM specification. If no new information is provided then we move the specification to a standard. Regards, Tom Merkle -----Original Message----- From: Jones, Steve G [mailto:steve.g.jones@capgemini.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 4:58 AM To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: FW: [soa-rm] Result of Voting on SOA-RM v1.0 as OASIS Standard I propose we submit to full specification. One negative vote against 89 positives is a pretty ringing endorsement in anyone's book. Particularly given the comment on the no vote I don't see why we wouldn't shift to standard. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Mary McRae [mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org] Sent: 02 October 2006 00:25 To: members@lists.oasis-open.org; tc-announce@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [soa-rm] Result of Voting on SOA-RM v1.0 as OASIS Standard OASIS members: The ballots for approval of Reference Model for Service Oriented Architecture v1.0 as an OASIS Standard (announced at [1]) has closed. There were sufficient affirmative votes to approve the specification. However, because there was a negative vote, the SOA Reference Model Technical Committee must decide how to proceed, as provided in the OASIS TC Process, at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#3.4. A further announcement will be made to this list regarding their disposition of the vote. Mary [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/members/200609/msg00002.html --------------------------------------------------- Mary P McRae Manager of TC Administration, OASIS email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org web: www.oasis-open.org This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]