RE: [wsbpel-reqts] How many email lists for issues

[Rand Anderson <randerson@macgregor.com>]

Monica,
I understand, I think, and agree with the *interest* behind your request for
public visibility.

But, what we decided yesterday is that making process requirements like
these critical path to getting our process started falls into a bucket we
called 'over-engineering the process a priori'.

While public visibility is good for the issue submission part, it seems
fairer to say that the process without it is good enough to get started, and
possibly (probably IMO) good enough for the long haul as well. This is
better because it's easier for us to get started, and the mechanism is there
to improve it the moment we find it is breaking down (if it does).

BTW, I think there is a good chance that it will be public anyway, but the
point is that it is not a requirement for it to be public, so if it turns
out that it is not easy to make it public, we can still move forward with a
process that lets us focus on our TC's objective rather than continuing all
our efforts on basic process.

HTH,
Rand

-----Original Message-----
From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:monica.martin@sun.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:51 AM
To: Diane Jordan
Cc: Furniss, Peter; wsbpel-reqts@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-reqts] How many email lists for issues

Diane Jordan wrote:

>
> That is my understanding.  I've asked for a from the oasis folks.  As 
> I thought about it, I think it should be do-able.  There is a wsbpeI 
> chair list that anyone can send to but it only goes to John and I. 
>  Its archived, although I don't think its public.  
> As fallback, I'm ok with mail direct to you.
>
mm1: This should be public.

>
> Following up the discussion last night, I'm not sure where we ended up
> on how many email lists are involved.
>
> Functionally, from the issue perspective, there are:
>                 a) where new issue requests are sent
>                 b) where issue procedures are discussed
>                 c) where new issues are announced
>                 d) where detailed discussion of issues occurs
>                 e) main tc list
>                 f) other subgroups
>
> Some of which are likely the same. It was said that issue discussion was
> liable to occur on any of the list. I believe the concensus for now is:
>
> a) - a new lists which anyone in the tc can send to but only I and
> alternate editors subscribe to.

mm1: This should be available to TC members to review by some mechanism.

>
> b) wsbpel-reqts
> c) the main list, wsbpel
> d) at the moment, wsbpel
>
> and all lists except the new issue list are scoured for Issue - nn -
> subject lines.
>
> I'd suggest, if we can't get a list with properties a), people are told
> just to send direct to the editor and alternates. We lose the archiving,
> but if I abuse my powers, people will moan, and if I don't it doesn't
> matter.

mm1: See comment above.

>
> If we decide we want to make c) and d) different, I can make the
> announcements go to one list with reply-to set to another.
>
>
> Peter
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Peter Furniss
> Chief Scientist, Choreology Ltd
>
>   Cohesions 1.0 (TM)
>   Business transaction management software for application coordination
>
> web: http://www.choreology.com
> email:  peter.furniss@choreology.com
> phone:  +44 20 7670 1679
> direct: +44 20 7670 1783
> mobile: +44 7951 536168
> 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX
>
>