On Dec 3, 2005, at 2:12 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 1, 2005, at 3:18 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
[I'm having mail problems but saw Roy's reply and want to respond,
because this is important, and I want to understand if I grok the
problem]
Everyone is having mail problems -- the apache relay is misbehaving.
I was getting mailbox full from my ISP in the US because I couldn't
delete things from my POP account for a while. (was traveling...)
Roy Responded :
Sure, but unless the proposal reflects that effort I will vote
against it.
SOA should not be the proposal.
I think I understand the problem - it's the presentation in the
proposal - and having reviewed the proposal, I should have caught
it. It reads like "mubble wubble SOA woogie blah foo SOA fwink
thoobie wk SOA boo SOA apooth SOA SOA ... SOA ... "
However, this proposal is about SCA specifically, not SOA generally.
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.
Great. It seems then that we've cleared up the misunderstanding due
to the wording in the proposal, and our next step will be to update
the formal proposal to correct this.
I think the hesitancy in updating the proposal was to ensure that we
understood where you are coming from, and if our clarification
resolves your problems.
Thanks
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
