OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: irc for conf call [Was RE: [wsbpel] This telcon process doesn't work!]


Title: Message
Hello Paul,
 
for one the more critical parts of IRC (i.e. DCC for file sharing) can be disabled (and in fact are disabled by default unless your firewall has support for them). In addition to that, there are CGI gateways to IRC Servers. This will allow the most restricted user to participate (from behind a firewall as long as http is allowed).
 
Personally I would volunteer to run a irc server and a HTTP CGI Gateway for the discussion. That way everybody can join via HTTP (slow but compatible) or via native IRC protocol. How is that?
 
If i get the ok, i will set up an irc server and a web frontend (both with a simple password) reachable from the world.
 
Greetings
Bernd
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lipton, Paul C [mailto:Paul.Lipton@ca.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 5:09 AM
To: Burdett, David; donald.steiner@webv2.com; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Guidelines [Was RE: [wsbpel] This telcon process doesn't work!]

Hi David,

 

Many corporate security policies forbid the IRC protocol and block it as insecure. I don’t want to debate this, but a brief talk recently with our own Enterprise security officer opened my eyes to problems with both IRC clients and with what the protocol allows you to do. I don’t remember the particulars, but he certainly had a long list of concerns that I’m sure could be substantiated by anybody interested with a simple internet search on IRC and security, I would think.

 

Does anybody know of mechanisms that are more likely to be considered acceptable, and that would be able to pass through most corporate firewalls?

 

Thanks,

Paul

Paul Lipton

Technology Strategist, Office of the CTO

Computer Associates

P: +1 908 874-9479

F: +1 908 874-9178

E: paul.lipton@ca.com

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 3:13 PM
To: 'donald.steiner@webv2.com'; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Guidelines [Was RE: [wsbpel] This telcon process doesn't work!]

 

Donald

 

How do you make a motion if you can't speak because you are in listen only mode?

 

Using IRC would help as was suggested.

 

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Steiner [mailto:donald.steiner@webv2.com]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 11:23 AM
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsbpel] Guidelines [Was RE: [wsbpel] This telcon process doesn't work!]

I quite support Rand's observations. Just one follow-on guideline, taking up on Fred's remarks: In general, if an issue that can't immediately be resolved comes up in a formal meeting like this, a motion should be made to deal with it offline and return to it at the next meeting.

 

 - Donald

--------------
Donald Steiner
Chief Scientist
WebV2, Inc.             Phone&Fax: +1(650)940-1382
169 University Ave         E-mail: Donald.Steiner@webv2.com
Palo Alto, CA  94301          WWW: www.webv2.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Rand Anderson [mailto:randerson@macgregor.com]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 10:59 AM
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: 'Ben Bloch'; Burdett, David; 'Darran Rolls'; Diane Jordan
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] This telcon process doesn't work!

Folks,

My initial reaction to today's kickoff:

 

We ran into some issues (some business but mostly protocol, I think), but to me, these seem like mostly normal issues for the birth-pains of a new group with this kind of mission and industry interest. The benefit to running into these kinds of issues in our kickoff meeting is that we can solidify some ground rules and practices early in our life that will help things go more smoothly the rest of the way, before we get to the really gnarly issues. BTW, thanks to all who spearheaded, attended, and supported this, but especially to Diane and John for their patient leadership.

 

Some points of order that I might offer:

 

A few folks complained about having a conference call meeting conducted mostly in "listen-only" mode and needing to resort to speaker queues. I presume they felt that this somehow would constrain or limit (negatively) the opportunities for contribution and/or interaction.

 

In fact, if we were to strictly follow Robert's Rules of Order, these constraints would be barely noticed by anyone participating (with maybe a minor exception, see my suggested revisions below). [In fact, following Robert's Rules on a conf call with speaker-queuing is better than following Robert's Rules in person in at least one way: the fairness of the queuing is managed for us by the call system; when in person, the sequence of hand-raising is somewhat subject to the memory of the chair.]

 

John, I think you mentioned getting a FAQ for Robert's Rules posted to the BPEL site - this is crucial, and everyone needs to get some basic familiarity with operating in a group bound by Robert's Rules. They are intended (and crafted over many years) to help ensure fair and orderly conduct of decision making by groups.

 

To be clear, for BPEL conf call TC meetings, I am strongly in favor of conducting them roughly as was proposed for today's call, with listen-mode most of the time (to minimize line noise), plus the following guidelines:

-          allow folks to get in the speaker queue at any time (this is simply analogous to raising your hand to be heard at an in-person meeting)

-          ask that the meeting chair simply call on those in the queue in a FIFO manner, as appropriate to the point at hand

-          note that getting into the queue doesn't mean you can speak at will; you will get your turn as called upon by the chair

-          again, participants should think of getting in the speaker queue simply as equivalent to raising your hand. If you 'drop your hand' then re-raise it, you first fall out of the queue and then get back on at the end of the queue. This is fair.

-          until we get the hang of it, we maybe need to be a bit more heavy-handed on enforcing some of the rules of order, e.g., when the item on the floor is whether or not you object to the current motion, do not use your moment on the floor to suggest another amendment - that only creates confusion. There are certain times open for amendments, etc. Read Robert's Rules to get some understanding of how this works.

 

 [...] 



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]