On 12/5/05, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 so 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 good 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/) does 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 that may help to explain why we're kean to ensure the same mistakes are not repeated with new projects. - robert
