Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.162.192 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=ZDUqF5zdXQ51xupeE9lMmaRah0kW/MedjGMijL18OgSfBg40IA+MBNt2Pf6D3baSakt1OQpoz1MxAWIraioJsKc3foP7mY93PObjRUVk5fXGSyirQQyWA9xLofsSM/OMcQBQpocIb4uxLiyrOu+GkCA05qaK5eaBH48Rvdk25Cw=
Message-ID: <f470f68e0512050432w33406f9dga781569e95d95766@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:32:18 +0000
From: robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Tuscany SOA Project
In-Reply-To: <43939E80.9070904@us.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_29766_20331903.1133785938401"
References: <438DEBF2.1040203@apache.org>
	 <3842911A-0EA4-44CC-B82F-A1825D47AFDB@gbiv.com>
	 <32384427-9E5D-4AB4-AE5D-8B980DFACA7E@apache.org>
	 <3181516B-19FF-4D05-9439-4E3E76C560D5@apache.org>
	 <971B7745-7C1E-411D-9A23-EB38EE8496BF@gbiv.com>
	 <43939E80.9070904@us.ibm.com>

------=_Part_29766_20331903.1133785938401
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 12/5/05, Jeremy Boynes <jboynes@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Roy T.Fielding wrote:
> >
> > No, the proposal is all about SOA.  What you are saying is that the
> > *actual plan* is about SCA.  What I am saying is that the proposal
> > needs to match the actual plan, preferably a plan that is actionable,
> > rather than a statement of how happy the SOA community may someday be.
> >
> > I think everyone understands that now, yet nobody has updated the wiki.
> > There's no rush, I guess, but I do want to be clear that an e-mail
> > exchange is not the same as recording a mission statement that people
> > outside the proposal authors will understand.
> >
>
> I held off making changes as I thought discussing a moving target would
> be confusing. I have now updated the proposal on the wiki expanding the
> Rationale section to indicate that we will be implementing the SCA
> specifications starting from an initial contribution.


IMHO getting used to managing moving targets and evolving processes is
something that any potential podling needs to get used to. often building
consensus amongst a community means updating with sequential improvements s=
o
that the community can react to the current state of the document. it may
take several iterations to reach something that no one feels is too
unsatisfactory so it's best to keep the momentum high and the iterations
quick. sometimes the diff's can slip under people's radar so it's often goo=
d
to follow an update with a reply to the thread.

personally speaking, I'd prefer something more declarative with a new and
better first paragraph. it's hard to build a community around a project
which takes three paragraphs to get to the point. IMHO the first two
paragraphs reads (to me) more like justifying a business case and less like
a call to arms for developers ;)  Karl Fogel (http://producingoss.com/) doe=
s
a better job than I do at explaining what makes a good mission for an open
source project so that might be worth consulting that book.

i know that it might sound like we're making a lot out of a little but IMO
it's very important for the long term health of a project to have a clearly
defined scope. this lack of definition has hurt the ASF in the past and tha=
t
may help to explain why we're kean to ensure the same mistakes are not
repeated with new projects.

 - robert

------=_Part_29766_20331903.1133785938401--