MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] IFSC was: RE: [emergency-msg] Any word from Jamie? Notes.
I don't think Kon's remarks were aimed at Tom, but at the previous
situation, and I don't know if Tom was taking it personally or not,
but I hope not. I think he would honestly like to see someone else
take the chair, and I know what that is like too. I also understand
the frustration and share it, and likewise think Tom's willingness to
take on a task that has heretofore been both thankless and stuck in
the mud is a welcome sign.
I happen to think we need an IF SC, though I'm prepared to be wrong
or to be voted down. But if we do carry on, we may find ourselves
assembling best practices rather than drafting any new standards per
se. Or, maybe we do need to nail our own stake in the sand. I just
don't know.I don't think we can assess whether or not we need an IF
SC until we survey that field in writing with, perhaps a table of
transports and standards, and get a better idea of what is there,
what isn't there yet, what might get there, etc. There are a lot of
folks in the web services world who felt similar dissatisfaction
recently, but most folks are continuing to just work away at it. It
happens to look to me like it is poised to come together in a quite
workable way. The standards arena is rife with examples of how the
process can get tangled up, but before we toss in the towel, I would
like to be able to survey the field and assure myself that that is
the right decision.
Whether or not the field is amenable to standards also can't be
assessed until we look at what is there. Kon has contributed quite a
bit of factual information that I, speaking only for myself, haven't
really gone through yet and I would like to do that, along with
posting my own evaluation of where web services is and what I think
we can reasonably expect in the next year and half, which is about as
far ahead as I think we can see--at least that's as far the plans I
know about, extend.
Now, since I won't be at the next telecon, I will do my best to get a
report on web services out before then, and hopefully far enough
ahead for people to at least read the subheads.
Ciao,
Rex
At 2:20 PM -0700 8/17/04, Art Botterell wrote:
>Guys, I think it would be both unproductive and unfair to turn this
>into a matter of personalities. The framing of the IF SC's mission
>has always been broad and, to a number of us, relatively vague. I'm
>not sure anyone could have made it work either better or worse than
>it has in the absence of some concrete and specific goals.
>
>Maybe the question we should be asking, after almost a
>year-and-a-half of experiment, is whether an "Infrastructure" SC as
>currently defined is actually a useful mechanism to advance the TC's
>work... and if not, what other division of labor might be more
>productive. We aren't required to keep the same SC structure
>forever.
>
>In particular I'd ask whether infrastructure is an area that needs
>(or will accept) standardization through the OASIS process.
>
>- Art
>
>At 2:48 PM -0700 8/17/04, Rex Brooks wrote:
>>Hi Tom,
>>
>>I thought, and think that you are doing just fine. We already have
>>some traction going with suggestions on how to proceed and avoid
>>becoming an empty potential. A good chair doesn't usually make
>>things happen, they help things happen.Of course there are always
>>exceptions. It's easy to lose track of that, as I know from
>>personal experience.
>>
>>Ciao,
>>Rex
>>
>>At 2:53 PM -0400 8/17/04, Tom Merkle wrote:
>>>Kon,
>>>Since you seem to have an idea on where the IF SC needs to go, I invite
>>>you to take my position as IF SC co-chair. I have never been associated
>>>with a black-hole standards group and it is not my intention to start
>>>now.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Tom Merkle
>>>
>>>
>>>