RE: [wsbpel-reqts] Issue process update - conference call Monday July 7, 3pm eastern?

[Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>]

Hi,
  I can make the call.

  I would like to discuss the new issues issue.

  From the experience I've had, it is very difficult to manage a discussion 
once it gets started on the new-issues list. People see a new issue and 
often have an immediate response, which starts off a thread on the 
new-issues list. Once started it's very hard to get it moved, as people 
just automatically group reply to (old) messages.
   I think its worth a *short* discussion.
      jeff

At 12:00 PM 7/3/2003, Yaron Y. Goland wrote:
>I can make the call and am fine with new issues going to the mailing list.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:45 AM
>To: bpel rqmts
>Subject: RE: [wsbpel-reqts] Issue process update - conference call Monday 
>July 7, 3pm eastern?
>
>Having noted the discussion on weekly summaries etc, I've been tweaking 
>the scripts so issues can have a field identifying when they were last 
>changed, and also the scripts can produce multiple tables sorted or 
>selected on different fields - so the top of the list and/or a separate 
>document (or email) can have a table of the new and recently changed 
>issues (linked to the substance).  I'll put up a new, up-to-date list once 
>I've got it all together.
>
>On the weekly summary question, I'd generally assumed that I would 
>normally suppress the document-uploaded message to the group when I put up 
>a new issues list edition. I could switch that back on once a week, or 
>send a separate announcement, perhaps containing a summary table.
>
>Having seen Yuzo's new issue (link semantics in event handlers) come in, 
>and the brief discussion on it I think it will be tolerable, and may well 
>be beneficial to have the new request on an open list.  I will often be 
>able to start off with links to the pre-discussion (if it doesn't get too 
>large, and stays on topic).
>
>Did you get anywhere on the fixed URL issue ?  (I noticed one of the other 
>groups had similar problems, though for a different reason - that was 
>schemas that needed to cross-refer to each other's location.)  In my mind, 
>there's an interaction between a fixed URL and how up-to-date I keep the 
>list.  If the url is always different, it would seem to be unhelpful to do 
>very frequent uploads, and better to batch up changes over a few days (and 
>probably always announce it). If the url can stay fixed, there's no 
>downside in keeping it as up-to-date as I get round to. (the mail-trolling 
>updates can be made nearly automatic)
>
>I should be ok for the discussion on (for me) Monday evening.
>
>Peter
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Diane Jordan [mailto:drj@us.ibm.com]
>Sent: 03 July 2003 05:18
>To: bpel rqmts
>Subject: [wsbpel-reqts] Issue process update - conference call Monday July 
>7, 3pm eastern?
>
> From comments received, I think the outline of the issues process below 
> is ok, with the input that a weekly summary report of new issues would be 
> desirable.  This seems ok, if someone is willing to volunteer to produce 
> one.  If not, everyone will receive an email for each new issue and the 
> agenda for the bi-weekly calls will also include both those issues ready 
> for discussion in the next call and a link to the current issues list.
>
>I've not sent a note to the full TC on the process pending discussion with 
>the Oasis staff.  It appears they cannot provide the type of email list we 
>requested where everyone could post, but only the issues editor and backup 
>would receive.  That leaves us with two choices, I think:
>1.  folks send issues directly to the issue editor (Peter and a backup)
>2.  folks send issues to the TC email list with "New Issue" in the subject 
>line.
>In both cases, the issue editor would then validate the formating, assign 
>an issue number, add it to the issues list and send an email announcing 
>the new issue.   With the first option, we eliminate an extra email to the 
>whole group, but lose some visibility.  With the second option, we ask 
>people to ignore the new issue mail and refrain from starting discussion 
>until the announcement with the issue number so that the email threads can 
>be linked to the issue in the issue list.   I have a slight preference for 
>2 because of the visibility, but am willing to go either way and, in 
>particular, would defer to Peter's judgement as he's the one who's stepped 
>forward to act as editor.
>
>I think it's worthwhile to have another call to conclude this process 
>before presenting to the full TC.  John has put this on the agenda for 
>next week.    We've tentatively set up a call for 3pm eastern/12pm pacific 
>on Monday July 7.  Dial in info is:   888-711-4576, Toll/International 
>Callers = 1-484-630-9377, Password = 20061.   I'll be on vacation, so 
>please let John know whether you can make this.  If not, please send 
>comments beforehand.
>
>I'm really hoping that we can get this settled soon so we can move on to 
>working on the issues themselves.  Thanks for your help.
>Regards, Diane
>IBM  Dynamic e-business Technologies
>drj@us.ibm.com
>(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123
>----- Forwarded by Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM on 07/02/2003 11:40 PM -----
>Diane Jordan
>
>06/30/2003 10:55 PM
>
>         To:        bpel rqmts <wsbpel-reqts@lists.oasis-open.org>
>         cc:
>         From:        Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
>         Subject:        Re: [wsbpel] Re: [wsbpel-reqts] A couple things 
> we need for WS BPEL TC issue process
>
>
>
>This is the process we've discussed as I understand it:
>- issue is sent to issue editor
>- issue editor sends email to everyone "announcing" issue and adds to the 
>issues document which will include links to appropriate email threads
>- replies to the announcement email go to everyone
>- other emails discussing the issue will be captured in the document if 
>the subject line is formatted correctly
>- chair will find champion for each issue to help drive progress
>- an issues meeting will be held weekly to review issues and formulate 
>proposed motions for the full tc to consider.  This will be open to all tc 
>members but not an official meeting.
>- chair will look to output of issues meeting for input on which issues 
>are ready to be discussed at a TC meeting and will also take input from TC 
>members.  Chair will include list of issues to be discussed in the agenda 
>sent the friday before the TC call.  Agenda should include link to 
>appropriate info including the issues list.
>- motions to resolve issues will be covered in the official tc 
>calls.  Motions may be brought by anyone, but "best practices" encourages 
>use of the issues team and circulating motions prior to the calls.
>
>Have I got this straight?    Do we still think this is ok, given the 
>emails of the last few days?
>This provides regular "reminders" of issues (new and those to be covered 
>with the full TC) which I think could be structured to include a link to 
>the issues list.  This does involve email to everyone on every new issue, 
>and everyone will be copied on the replies to those issues.   Note, I've 
>sent this to the issues/requirements process team only - I'm preparing the 
>note for the full TC that we discussed last week.
>
>Regards, Diane
>IBM  Dynamic e-business Technologies
>drj@us.ibm.com
>(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123