[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] New BPEL Issue process - please read - will effect yournew issues
i brought this point up at our last call, and i think we decided to make it a supermajority of present members. can't find the minutes right now to confirm. Yaron Y. Goland wrote: > I had understood that we only required a super majority of present > members, not a super majority of the entire group. I believe that > requiring a super majority of the entire group penalizes those who > show up for meetings. > > Thanks, > Yaron > > Diane Jordan wrote: > >> >> On the last call, I promised to send an email restating the process >> for opening issues that we discussed and adopted on the call. Here >> it is and I've taken the opportunity to use Tony's proposal as an >> example. (Tony, hope you don't mind being the test case). >> 1. proposed issues will be reviewed on the TC call if they are >> received 7 or more days before the call. (Thus this one will be >> reviewed on the call Sept 15). 2. on that call, we will first ask if >> there are any objections to opening the proposed issues as a bug. >> If there are none, we will open the issue, end of process. >> 3. If there are objections, we will have a vote (requiring simple >> majority) on whether it is bug related. This will be not be done >> immediately - it will be done either by web ballot starting >> immediately after the meeting or at the next meeting (in this case >> the f2f on Sept 21-23). The decision on whether to use the web >> ballot or wait till the next meeting will be based on whether we >> desire further discussion about whether it is a bug or not on the >> next call before the ballot. If the ballot results in it being >> considered a bug, we will open the issue, end of process >> 4. If the ballot to declare it a bug doesn't pass, there will be a >> second ballot, held right away (for this eg, Sept 21-23), on whether >> to allow it to be opened. ---------> Note that since we've decided >> this ballot to open a non-bug will require a super majority and that >> is based on full voting membership rather than quorum, we may not be >> able to hold it if there aren't enough members in the meeting. If >> there are enough attendees (ie, at least 2/3 of voting members), we >> will vote immediately - if it fails, and the number of absences are >> such that it could pass if they all voted for it, we will defer the >> decision and vote via web ballot starting immediately after the >> call/meeting. The web ballot will run for 7 days per the OASIS >> process. From our general attendance rates, its probable we will >> usually be able to have the initial vote on our call but will have to >> go to the web ballot if there are more than a couple folks who don't >> want it opened. If the second ballot to open the issue passes, we >> open the issue, end of process. If the ballot to open the issue >> does not pass, the issue will move directly to closed status and the >> "revisitable" flag will be set, end of process. >> Again, just as an example, best case we could decide this is a bug >> and open it on the call Sept. 15, or worst case, it could be Sept 30 >> before we've resolved what to do. (This is one week less than most >> cases because the f2f in Sept means we have meetings 3 weeks in a row). >> Any questions? >> Regards, Diane >> IBM Emerging Internet Software Standards >> drj@us.ibm.com >> (919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123, Fax 845-491-5709 >> >> >> >> *"Tony Fletcher" <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>* >> >> 08/27/2004 12:54 PM >> >> >> To >> <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org> >> cc >> >> Subject >> [wsbpel] New BPEL Issue - add explicit conformance statements / >> section >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> I move that we accept a new "bug" issue into the issues list >> concerned with adding an explicit set of conformance statements, >> preferably in a conformance section, to the specification for >> 'BPEL'. The rationale and a draft proposal is given in the attached >> document. >> >> Resolving this issue will not lead to the addition of any new >> features.. However, it will enhance and clarify the text in a >> significant manner and therefore is worth tackling at this time. >> >> The process of adding such a conformance section will cause us to >> think about and address the following questions: >> >> For what sort of 'things' can conform to the BPEL specification? >> >> For each type of 'thing' for which conformance can be claimed, what >> precisely does that thing have to be / do / not do to be conformant. >> >> Best Regards, >> Tony/ / >> >> <http://www.choreology.com/> Tony Fletcher >> Technical Advisor >> Choreology Ltd. >> 68, Lombard Street, London EC3V 9L J UK >> Phone: +44 (0) 1473 729537 >> Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219 >> Fax: +44 (0) 870 7390077 >> Web: www.choreology.com <http://www.choreology.com/> >> Cohesions™ >> Business transaction management software for application coordination >> Work: tony.fletcher@choreology.com >> Home: amfletcher@iee.org <mailto:amfletcher@iee.org> >> >> >> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster > of the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php. > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]