RE: [wsbpel-reqts] BPEL TC issues coordination call Sept 24 11am eastern

["Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>]

Title: Message

Rand's approach sounds sensible.

 

It is obviously very important for people when voting to be clear on precisely what the proposed resolution is - especially if the original proposal (from the champion) has been the subject of discussion and attempted friendly amendment. I would expect to put a "Proposed resolution" entry in the issues list, either containing the proposal or pointing to the message that contains it, and change that to "Resolution" if it passed. However, the issues list is an evolving document and only gets uploaded (and thus publically archived) once a week so that shouldn't be the authoritative reference. However, a kavi ballot is archived (and can include reference links to other items (including archived emails ??)) so using the web ballot would seem to provide the necessary record. For votes during meetings, I'm sure the chair (and the members, from experience :-) wll ensure clarity. Highly amended resolutions will probably benefit from a resubmission to avoid people have to chase through links.

 

Hmm - ballots have an identifiable url, so the issues list can have

 

    Resolution:   (approved in this web ballot) 

 

which might or might not include the date or title.

 

Peter

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rand Anderson [mailto:randerson@macgregor.com]
Sent: 24 September 2003 03:45
To: 'Diane Jordan'; bpel rqmts
Cc: Danny van der Rijn
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-reqts] BPEL TC issues coordination call Sept 24 11am eastern

Hi all,

Re the first issue:

 

My thought would be that the issue champion would be positioned to have this sense of when his/her issue has sufficient consensus around a proposed solution. At the next TC meeting, the champion would make a motion to adopt the proposed solution. (Of course any voting TC member is allowed to make such motions, it just makes sense for the straightforward issues to expect the champion to make the motion - provides some catharsis for the champion if nothing else ;).

 

Then, as with any motion, discussion, if appropriate, could ensue. When a call for a vote is made, just have the standard procedure be for the vote to be done by web ballot. In this way, the motion gets recorded clearly in the minutes, but the meeting does not get bogged down in the inefficiencies of voting on teleconferences. (Of course, if the meeting is a F2F, the vote could be taken then and there). In the following meeting, I presume there would be a section under Old Business in which the results of web ballot votes processed since the last TC meeting would be briefly reviewed; again, this effects the recording of the decisions into the minutes.

 

This seems to me like a good balance between efficiency and sufficient formality so as to leave a clear succinct record of decisions made.

 

HTH,

Rand

-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Jordan [mailto:drj@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:25 PM
To: bpel rqmts
Cc: Danny van der Rijn
Subject: [wsbpel-reqts] BPEL TC issues coordination call Sept 24 11am eastern

Hi,
This is just a reminder of our regular call tomorrow at 11 am eastern, 8am pacific, 5pm Germany.  Call in is:  877-988-8393, int'l 203 566-8013, pc 484868.  
I have two items for discussion:
- what is the best approach for voting on issues that have a proposed solution that has been discussed and apparently agreed to by many (ie, several from the f2f).  The options are web ballot or review and voting on the TC call.  I favor the former, but would like to get input.  Danny, I added you to copy as you you expressed an opinion on this last week - if you can't join us, send your views by email please.
- which issues to discuss at next week's TC call.
Let us know if you have more.
Thanks.
Regards, Diane
IBM  Dynamic e-business Technologies
drj@us.ibm.com
(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123