Fw: [wsbpel] Issue - 82 - Proposal for Vote

[Diane Jordan <drj@us.ibm.com>]

I think its only fair to point out that
we've agreed to a process in the TC where the work is driven from the issues
list.  I've asked Rania (and I asked the subgroup before it disbanded)
to try to bring the discussion back to the issues that were/are open.  
More general discussion can be worthwhile for various reasons, and was
one of the motivations as I understood it for the subgroup, but  the
main TC agenda has been driven by actionable issues and proposals for them.
 

Issue descriptions need to be specific
and concrete as we've discussed a number of times.  Bugs or enhancements
that we know of which are not included in the current issues should be
opened as new issues.  If the existing issues are too broad, it will
help us make progress if we can split them into workable pieces and we
now have a vehicle for doing that.  These are general principles that
will help us get through the workload regardless of the topic.  

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

----- Forwarded by Diane
Jordan/Raleigh/IBM on 10/13/2004 05:08 PM -----

"Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>

10/13/2004 04:56 PM

To	"'Monica J. Martin'" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, <rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com>
cc	<ygoland@bea.com>, <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 82 - Proposal for Vote

+1 - the sub group had no such restrictions on its
chater so why add
them in now?

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] 
>Sent: 13 October 2004 19:28
>To: rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com
>Cc: ygoland@bea.com; Martin Chapman; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 82 - Proposal for Vote
>
>
>rkhalaf wrote:
>
>> Hi Monica,
>>
>> The proposal in (1) makes abstract BPEL's syntax a strict superset
of
>> executable BPEL. This is not what is in the specification.
>>
>> The issue 82 is to clarify what abstract bpel is (mainly wordsmithing
>> as the issue states) and to have a better definition not to change
>> what it is or how it is.  The other issues are being used
to do that 
>> such as 107 etc .. Changing structure goes under rearchitecting.
>>
>mm1: This restriction was not a part of the subgroup discussion, and
>clearly was not placed on the scope of the recent TC 
>participation until 
>you specified it.  Why did the subgroup spend 5+ months trying
>to define 
>it if the boundary was the specification as a gate? To coin 
>Satish, this 
>is 'false economy.' Thank you.
>
>


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.