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: 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]