Re: [wsbpel] New BPEL Issue process - please read - will effect your newissues

I agree with using 2/3 of the attending
members (and will have the minutes posted shortly - its not the fault of
hte minute takers!).

Just wanted to give everyone a pat on
the back -  we generally have very good attendance on our calls and
have even had a few where all members were present.  (The f2f meetings
are more problematic due to travel issues).    

Regards, Diane

IBM  Emerging Internet Software Standards



(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123, Fax 845-491-5709

Ron Ten-Hove <>

09/09/2004 02:48 PM

To

Danny van der Rijn <>

cc



Subject

Re: [wsbpel] New BPEL Issue
process - please read - will effect your new issues

Danny,

    That is my recollection as well. It was deemed too difficult
to 

achieve a super-majority of the whole voting membership, when meetings

typically barely reach quorum.

-Ron

Danny van der Rijn wrote:

> 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

>>> 

>>> (919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123, Fax 845-491-5709

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> *"Tony Fletcher" <>*

>>>

>>> 08/27/2004 12:54 PM

>>>

>>>     To

>>>     <>

>>> 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: 

>>> Home:  <mailto:>

>>>

>>>  

>>>

>>

>> 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.

>>

>>

>>

>

> 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.

>

>

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.